SPLIT: The origin of the Catholic Church & Constantine

[crochet_lady]

Looking back – it was more Randy Carson # 78 that i was responding to. But one more comment – and someone will probably ‘get at me’ for being ‘off topic’ but here goes for the final time. Another perspective relative to Peter / Matthew 16:18 – referring back to vs 13 Jesus is asking the disciples 'Who do you say the son of Man is"? The disciples were responding back saying 'some say John the Baptist - some Elijah, etc.
Then He asked Them, what about You. Then Simon says ’ You are the Christ, the son of the living God.
Then Jesus replies that Simon’s (Peter) knowledge was given to him by 'My Father in heaven."
Jesus Then refers to his name as Peter which means ‘rock’ and on this rock I will build my church.
Which Could mean that on this rock/ Foundation – 'all who believe, confess that Jesus is the Christ – the Son of the Living God – just like Simon Peter did are the Church. Cause in Psalm 62: 1 & 2 "Truly my soul silently waits for God: From Him comes my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation. vs 7 “In God is my salvation and my glory; The rock of my strength, And my refuge, is in God "
That Jesus Christ - the Church - is built out of all the little rocks who are just like Peter.
And Satan isn’t / Won’t over come It – the Church of God.
Also in Acts 3 Peter and John addresses the on-lookers after the crippled beggar has been healed. The beggar was used to having people put money in his cup. So he assumed that Peter and John would do the same. But Peter says 'they didn’t have silver or gold – but what he Did have he gave to him. So - 'in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth - walk. The beggar was able to walk Immediately and praised God.
So Peter talked to the on-lookers – vs 16 'by faith in the name of Jesus.”
Peter was used of God to share the ‘keys’ of heaven and Hades with all who would listen. The ‘key’ being God’s Word. In Galations 2:7 p Paul was specially chosen by God to preach to the Gentiles and Peter has been chosen to preach to the Jews.
In the Old Testament, God chose Moses with a special mission to lead the Children of Israel out of Egypt to their new promised land. Noah was the only righteous man and family on earth – God gave him directions to build the ark which would ‘save’ anyone who chose to trust in the ark he was building. In the end, though, only Noah and his wife and in-laws truly trusted and were used to start a new civilization after the flood.
And Saul/ Paul was picked by God in the New Testament – he Had been out to get any Christians and have them thrown into jail or worse – God turned him around and used him Instead to write the Prison Epistles / New Testament. But he suffered for his faith.
so - just wanted to share – Merry Christmas

 

[PromisesTrue21]

youtu.be/AntxorqHSjE

This is a good video explaining Peter and the rock. It helped clear waters for me

 

[pablope]

Lo

listen. The ‘key’ being God’s Word. In Galations 2:7 p Paul was specially chosen by God to preach to the Gentiles and Peter has been chosen to preach to the Jews.

Merry Christmas

But you miss a whole lot of things too:

To know the truth…Paul had to go back to the Apostles:

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.
Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

And prior to going to the Gentiles…is first ordained and sent…he did not go out on his own:

Acts 13:
1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

 

[pablope]

Looking back – it was more Randy Carson # 78 that i was responding to.

so - just wanted to share – Merry Christmas

By the way…may I ask…after being provided information…do you still believe this statement of yours below:

Originally Posted by crochet lady View Post
" continued.

A comment has been made that we who leave out the 7 Apocrphal books are missing so much of God’s Word. Well – there Are the rest of the 66 books that Are / have been the majority of the Bible for a LONG time.

Who do you think now took out the 7 books from the protestant bible?

 

[po18guy]

A comment has been made that we who leave out the 7 Apocrphal books are missing so much of God’s Word. Well – there Are the rest of the 66 books that Are / have been the majority of the Bible for a LONG time. Since there had been a question since even Before they Were incorporated , as to their need to Be included. Apparently their authenticity has been questioned. For whatever reason, they were not considered as being of the same calaber as the rest of the books.
And I also realize that my comments are Not particularly appreciated here, but there Are other perspectives ’ out there."

495 years of declaring books non-inspired may seem like a long time, but it is a blink of an eye in the 2,000 year history of the Church.

Consider: Martin Luther is the main force behind declaring the Deuterocanonical books to be “non-inspired.” He did so by his own authority - there was no Church council involved, as there was in Acts 15. You trust a single man to determine what your bible is and is not? If you trust Luther with God’s word, why do you not trust him in all other matters and become Lutheran - at least that would be consistent.

These books have been used since day1 in both the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches. Over 1,500 years later, a single European man says “it ain’t so.” Are you kidding me? That is an awfully huge disconnect. Since the Southern Baptists declare Luther to be wrong on many things, I truly wonder how they can trust him on these books of scripture.

Those seven books have been questioned, you say. Fine. Atheists question the Southern Baptist faith. The vast majority of Christians also question Baptist beliefs. Since the Southern Baptist beliefs have been called into question by the vast majority of both believers and non-believers, does that automatically mean that you practice a false religion?

I hope and pray that you might read and reflect on this brief article: 5 Myths About 7 Books.

 

[harlen]

Looking back – it was more Randy Carson # 78 that i was responding to. But one more comment – and someone will probably ‘get at me’ for being ‘off topic’ but here goes for the final time. Another perspective relative to Peter / Matthew 16:18 – referring back to vs 13 Jesus is asking the disciples 'Who do you say the son of Man is"? The disciples were responding back saying 'some say John the Baptist - some Elijah, etc.
Then He asked Them, what about You. Then Simon says ’ You are the Christ, the son of the living God.
Then Jesus replies that Simon’s (Peter) knowledge was given to him by 'My Father in heaven."
Jesus Then refers to his name as Peter which means ‘rock’ and on this rock I will build my church.
Which Could mean that on this rock/ Foundation – 'all who believe, confess that Jesus is the Christ – the Son of the Living God – just like Simon Peter did are the Church. Cause in Psalm 62: 1 & 2 "Truly my soul silently waits for God: From Him comes my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation. vs 7 “In God is my salvation and my glory; The rock of my strength, And my refuge, is in God "
That Jesus Christ - the Church - is built out of all the little rocks who are just like Peter.
And Satan isn’t / Won’t over come It – the Church of God.
Also in Acts 3 Peter and John addresses the on-lookers after the crippled beggar has been healed. The beggar was used to having people put money in his cup. So he assumed that Peter and John would do the same. But Peter says 'they didn’t have silver or gold – but what he Did have he gave to him. So - 'in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth - walk. The beggar was able to walk Immediately and praised God.
So Peter talked to the on-lookers – vs 16 'by faith in the name of Jesus.”
Peter was used of God to share the ‘keys’ of heaven and Hades with all who would listen. The ‘key’ being God’s Word. In Galations 2:7 p Paul was specially chosen by God to preach to the Gentiles and Peter has been chosen to preach to the Jews.
In the Old Testament, God chose Moses with a special mission to lead the Children of Israel out of Egypt to their new promised land. Noah was the only righteous man and family on earth – God gave him directions to build the ark which would ‘save’ anyone who chose to trust in the ark he was building. In the end, though, only Noah and his wife and in-laws truly trusted and were used to start a new civilization after the flood.
And Saul/ Paul was picked by God in the New Testament – he Had been out to get any Christians and have them thrown into jail or worse – God turned him around and used him Instead to write the Prison Epistles / New Testament. But he suffered for his faith.
so - just wanted to share – Merry Christmas

“The keys of the gates” were only held by the supreme ruler of a city.
Remember, at this time, cities were fortified strongholds usually on hilltops.
Their security was only as good as the gates… and the ruler (or someone trusted in his place) held the keys.
The keys are authority. This is the only possible interpretation because Jesus lays it out in the following sentences “whatsoever you bind or loosen”. Many Protestant scholars now accept this is the only possible meaning… but some try to limit it only to Peter’s lifetime. This makes no sense as The Gates of Hades never prevailing…implies a permanent authority, and the authority (& focus of unity) is needed more, not less as the Church grew.

You didn’t respond to my post on page 6 (About whether Jesus intended to found a book-religion or a faith-community, & the relative importance of scripture)…which is where I feel you are at right now maybe?

 

[Goya]

harlen;11506156]

“The keys of the gates” were only held by the supreme ruler of a city.

Remember, at this time, cities were fortified strongholds usually on hilltops.
Their security was only as good as the gates… and the ruler (or someone trusted in his place) held the keys.

The keys are authority. This is the only possible interpretation because Jesus lays it out in the following sentences “whatsoever you bind or loosen”. Many Protestant scholars now accept this is the only possible meaning… but some try to limit it only to Peter’s lifetime. This makes no sense as The Gates of Hades never prevailing…implies a permanent authority, and the authority (& focus of unity) is needed more, not less as the Church grew.

You didn’t respond to my post on page 6 (About whether Jesus intended to found a book-religion or a faith-community, & the relative importance of scripture)…which is where I feel you are at right now maybe?

Don’t hold your breath.

 

[petra22]

I was me (Harlen) actually who posed the questions about whether Jesus started a faith community or a “book-religion”
You seem to have opted for the startling conclusion that He intended something book-based!
Then why didn’t he write a book? (As Mohamed did for instance)
Why didn’t he instruct His Disciples to “Go, & write”?
Why didn’t he build a printing press first?

You seem to take the book “as-a-given”. It then causes faith and this faith causes a community.
But historically that is not how it happened.
Most of the Protestant scholars who become Catholic do so because of study of the early Church and the realisation that Christ founded a visible church… and that that church was, and is,The Catholic Church. 300 years later that Church gave a a new collection (and selection) of scriptures which (on the Catholic Bishops Authority) they called their “Library” (or “Bible”).
There is no single book.
The “new testament” writings come from the Church and
Most of the New Testament epistles for instance show no self-awareness that they are writing “scripture” rather than just dealing with the issues of the moment. It is only the later Catholic Bishops who declared them to be inspired in some way and put them into their bible.
If you don’t accept the innerant authority of the catholic bishops councils of Carthage… to add these various selected writings to a lot of Jewish scriptures and bind it into one “Library”(“Bible”) you are on your own. Do you use the “gospels” of Thomas or Peter that were rejected by the Bishops? f not, why not?
You say “scripture is the Word of God”. How do you Know?
How do you decide which of the many scriptures available to the early were “the word of God”?
Why take the Catholic Bishops selection as innerantly guided by God?
The Bible nowhere refers to itself because it is the Catholic Church’s collection of various literatures. That is why *the bible itself *has no Table of Contents! Those are added by the Selectioneers
It is not fair to pick up this so-called single “book” in the 16th century (because the printing press made it available) and make it the basis of hundreds of new religions without first understanding what it is.

“Book, causes faith, causes community”…has other problems. It is back to front.
Jesus inspired faith without a book and so did his apostles and disciples.
It was the community that inspired faith (“How they love one another”) in Jesus.
Jesus is alive in this community and in their Eucharist. It is this Living Jesus that inspires faith. This faith only “refers back to” its ancestral literature. So The Bible is our reference book, our touchstone, our family history. It tells us who we are, where we come from and where we are going. It is not a new way to bind those freed in the Spirit into a new dead-letter that replaces the dead letter of the Jewish Law.

The Trinity is not in The Bible. It is a Doctrine of the early Catholic Church. Why accept this doctrine and not other doctrines of this Church Like The Assumption, or the Title “Mother-of-God”?

I just want to keep reading this over and over. I wish they had a giant thumbsup!

 

[crochet_lady]

petra 22 / harlan # 126

11 Peter 1:21 “For prophesy never came by the will of men, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”

11 Timothy 3:16 “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness , that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

In the New Testament the Etheopian eunich had been reading part of the book of Isaiah and Peter was sent to explain to him what he was reading – he was able to understand and believed in his heart what he was reading. That was in the form of a scroll.

God had given the people / through the prophets / information about the coming of the Messiah so they knew to expect His birth / which came to be in the book of Luke / Matthew
Christ’s public ministry began and He was pointing people to the Father through the many miracles He performed. He chose His first 12 disciples and later the apostles – so He was the 1st ‘church’ - The Jewish people had been meeting in synagogues for a Long time. Jesus’ ministry was out in the public / feeding of the thousands. Everywhere He went - people followed. After His resurrection – He said He had to ascend Back to the Father in order for the Holy Spirit to come / which happened at Pentecost in book of Acts.
There were the three missionary journeys in Acts / Paul and Barnabas were sent to the Holy Spirit led them where they were to go preach – the starting of local groups of believers. God picked Paul to write a Lot of the New Testament books. They went back to visit those local body of believers to find out how they were doing.
“Catholic” means ’ universal’ group of believers. Those whom the Holy Spirit has come to indwell at the moment of their individual salvation. And then we have the Local groups of believers. And, yes, Christ is the founder / head of the local body of believers that most communities have at least one of. And those groups also have a pastor / elder / bishop.
And, yes, we Do have God’s Word / Bible – most having 66 books and some have a group of books called the Apocraphal books – situated between Old and New Testaments. There are several internet articles discussing those books – interesting reading. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, etc. all individual books that eventually were bound together with the invention of the printing press.
The Counsel of Nicene – there was no Roman Catholic Church until Constantine – the 5th to 7th centuries that there was a Roman Bishop heading Constantines’ Roman church.
Faith comes by Hearing and hearing the Word of God.

 

[sennincatholic]

11 Timothy 3:16 “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness , that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” .

You can’t use this verse to justify sola scriptura. How do we know what is scripture and what is not? Do you consider the gospel of Judas as inspired?How do you know it is scripture or not?
It is the church(Catholic, whether you like it or not) that determined what was scripture or not.
In response to your verse above, i’ll give you this one…:

1 Timothy 3:15 “If I delay, you will know how you ought to conduct yourself in the household of God, that is, the Church of the living God, which is the pillar and foundation of truth”
The pillar and foundation of truth is the church, which brings forth the bible and not the other way round.

 

[sennincatholic]

.
And, yes, we Do have God’s Word / Bible – most having 66 books and some have a group of books called the Apocraphal books – situated between Old and New Testaments. There are several internet articles discussing those books – interesting reading. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, etc. all individual books that eventually were bound together with the invention of the printing press.
.

:dts: No!
Do you mean that before the reformation, (which followed the printing press closely) there was no compiled bible in the Catholic Church…You mean the bible as we know it today with 66 or 73 books is a product of the reformation?:banghead: I hope I misunderstood you! I realy hope.

 

[adf417]

And, yes, we Do have God’s Word / Bible – most having 66 books and some have a group of books called the Apocraphal books – situated between Old and New Testaments. There are several internet articles discussing those books – interesting reading. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, etc. all individual books that eventually were bound together with the invention of the printing press.
The Counsel of Nicene – there was no Roman Catholic Church until Constantine – the 5th to 7th centuries that there was a Roman Bishop heading Constantines’ Roman church.

WOW!

I think if I were a protestant here on this thread I would want to correct my fellow protestant in the erroneous assertions above. It really makes some protestants look silly :yup: and I’m pretty sure she won’t listen to what Catholics have to say about this.

Peace!!!

 

[FathersKnowBest]

The Counsel of Nicene -- there was no Roman Catholic Church until Constantine -- the 5th to 7th centuries that there was a Roman Bishop heading Constantines' Roman church.

Faith comes by Hearing and hearing the Word of God.

Are you aware that the Catholic Church teachings are in full agreement with all the ancient Church documents that came WAY BEFORE Constantine? And that the baptist beliefs are contrary to the those very early, pre-Constantine Church beliefs?

Don’t you find that … problematic?

 

[harlen]

petra 22 / harlan # 126

11 Timothy 3:16 “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness , that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” …

Faith comes by Hearing and hearing the Word of God.

This is an “all statement” not an “only statement”
Put it into English “All sacred writings are useful” or “Only sacred writings are useful”
Or “All art is creative” in no way means “Only Art is creative”
You cannot derive “Sola Scriptura” from this.

(1)It is not even possible for “sola scriptura” to be true, because
…Sola scriptura is nowhere to be found in scripture itself!
Therefore it is self invalidating! (The Timothy quote above is all protestants can ever come up with, to… kind-of, point towards, a hint at it, but there is no “sola” there! It is an after-the-fact sop, that comforts those who are already convinced. It is frustrating for Catholics to discuss with Protestants who want the plain word of scripture… but won’t accept it on really important issues like this & the keys of authority.

(2)Scripture actually contradicts sola scriptura.

"the Church of God is the pillar and foundation of truth". (1 Timothy =
3:15 )

“Of course, Jesus also did many other things, and I suppose that if
every one of them were written down the world couldn’t contain the books
that would be written”. (John 21:25)

“The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many
witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach
others also”. (2Tim 2:2)

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold
fast to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth
or by letter from us." (2Thess 2:15)

(3) “All scripture…” (sacred writings). If you take that literally you would have to include the gospels of Thomas & Peter and perhaps Hindu, Sikh, Muslim literature etc. This problem was resolved by the bishops of the Catholic Church at the Councils of Carthage. How do you know what “all” scripture is?

To understand Mary one must think eschatologically. The “Queen of the Jews” was the Mother of “The King of the Jews” (not his wife),* and he was not permitted to refuse her anything*. Then think Cana. “Honoured Lady my time has not yet come”… “Do whatever He tells you”. Not only does He accept her intercession, but he even lets her overule his idea on when His mission must start. Does this offend you? Remember our God is Love. He is a humble God who “empties himself”, who delights in service, and in honouring his mother.
In this incarnation, Humanity is lifted up to God, & Mary is the New Eve, She is the First Fruit, so she knows no corruption and is assumed into Heaven. She is what we all must be.
Protestantism sought to increase the Gulf twixt God & Man, putting God Higher & Man lower (Hence imputed instead of imparted grace; man is never existentialy or intrinsically redeemed). And Mary is demoted with mankind.
This is the opposite spirit to catholicism in which God is unfathomably generous…Our God gives “Being God” (or God’s own Being) away. This unspeakable genorosity is The God of infinite Love bending low in order to lift us right up to Him.

 

[po18guy]

In the New Testament the Etheopian eunich had been reading part of the book of Isaiah and Peter was sent to explain to him what he was reading – he was able to understand and believed in his heart what he was reading. That was in the form of a scroll.

Get back to your bible! First, it was Acts 8:26-35. Second, it was Philip, not Peter. Third, Philip was sent by God and had the Apostolic authority to interpret.

You will kindly turn also in your NIV to Nehemiah 8:5-8. There, we see that Ezra and the scribes read the scriptures to the people, but also gave the sense of the scriptures so that the people understood. Ezra and the scribes had the authority to do this.

Mere possession of a bible and -]hatred/-] extreme dislike of the Catholic Church does not authority make.

You might want to bone up on your bible a bit more before making such posts.

 

[spina1953]

Acts 8: 26-35 contradicts sola scriptura to my way of thinking. When one reads this passage in Acts, it says that the Etheopian was reading Isaiah and when Philip came upon him and asked him if "he grasped what he was reading "the Etheopian replied that “How can I unless someone explains it to me?” Yes, anyone can read the Scriptures and maybe able to understand parts of what is being read, however that being said, there are many parts of Scriture that is rather difficult to understand let alone grasp. But what does this passage in Acts tell one? It tells one that in order to understand Scriptue one needs to have someone to explain it, that someone is the Church as it holds not just the deposit of faith but the authority given to the Apostles and their sucessors to interprete and explain what Scritpure means in light of what Christ taught. Without the Church Catholic to teach and explain Scritpure, then all one has is whatever one decides Scritpure to mean, which is to say that one becomes its own authority to interprete whatever meaning one thinks it is. This can be born out due to the fact that there are a great many denomoinations that (name removed by moderator)ose their own brand of interpretations as well as those who believe that all they need is the Bible. I have noticed that there are many people who will interprete something in Scripture and will say that their own personal interpretation is the correct one by the power of the Holy Spirit yet, none are in agreement which would then make the Holy Spirit the author of chaos, which the Holy Spirit is not. Also remember the Church Catholic came long before the emperior Constanstine.

 

[po18guy]

Acts 8: 26-35 contradicts sola scriptura to my way of thinking. When one reads this passage in Acts, it says that the Etheopian was reading Isaiah and when Philip came upon him and asked him if "he grasped what he was reading "the Etheopian replied that “How can I unless someone explains it to me?” Yes, anyone can read the Scriptures and maybe able to understand parts of what is being read, however that being said, there are many parts of Scriture that is rather difficult to understand let alone grasp. But what does this passage in Acts tell one? It tells one that in order to understand Scriptue one needs to have someone to explain it, that someone is the Church as it holds not just the deposit of faith but the authority given to the Apostles and their sucessors to interprete and explain what Scritpure means in light of what Christ taught. Without the Church Catholic to teach and explain Scritpure, then all one has is whatever one decides Scritpure to mean, which is to say that one becomes its own authority to interprete whatever meaning one thinks it is. This can be born out due to the fact that there are a great many denomoinations that (name removed by moderator)ose their own brand of interpretations as well as those who believe that all they need is the Bible. I have noticed that there are many people who will interprete something in Scripture and will say that their own personal interpretation is the correct one by the power of the Holy Spirit yet, none are in agreement which would then make the Holy Spirit the author of chaos, which the Holy Spirit is not. Also remember the Church Catholic came long before the emperior Constanstine.

Almost no bible Christian ever seems to understand what Peter had to say about the ignorant and unstable twisting and distorting the scriptures (2 Peter 3:15-17). It’s always “someone else” who does that. This current example is the most blatant twisting I have heard in quite awhile. The Ethiopian eunuch could not understand the scripture, which was the prophecy of Isaiah. Prophecy. Peter also wrote that no matter of scriptural prophecy is of any private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20).

The difference in the case of the eunuch? Humility. The eunuch was humble enough to admit that he could not understand the prophecy. It was that humility which left his heart open to the Gospel message. When the uncontrolled ego takes hold of the scriptures, they are twisted and distorted as the ego itself is twisted and distorted.

To suggest that these passages somehow endorse the private twisting of scripture is evidence that Peter knew, by the Holy Spirit, exactly what he was writing about. The utter failure of bible alone is demonstrated yet again by this gross distortion that makes void God’s word via Peter.

 

[steve_b]

Looking back – it was more Randy Carson # 78 that i was responding to. But one more comment – and someone will probably ‘get at me’ for being ‘off topic’ but here goes for the final time. Another perspective relative to Peter / Matthew 16:18 – referring back to vs 13 Jesus is asking the disciples 'Who do you say the son of Man is"? The disciples were responding back saying 'some say John the Baptist - some Elijah, etc.
Then He asked Them, what about You. Then Simon says ’ You are the Christ, the son of the living God.
Then Jesus replies that Simon’s (Peter) knowledge was given to him by 'My Father in heaven."
Jesus Then refers to his name as Peter which means ‘rock’ and on this rock I will build my church.
Which Could mean that on this rock/ Foundation – 'all who believe, confess that Jesus is the Christ – the Son of the Living God – just like Simon Peter did are the Church. Cause in Psalm 62: 1 & 2 "Truly my soul silently waits for God: From Him comes my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation. vs 7 "In God is my salvation and my glory; The rock of my strength, And my refuge, is in God " That Jesus Christ - the Church - is built out of all the little rocks who are just like Peter.
And Satan isn’t / Won’t over come It – the Church of God.

THE Rock (Jesus) is renaming (Simon) to Rock. Jesus didn’t rename everyone who made Peter’s statement.

In fact the apostles said much the same as Peter 2 chapters earlier

Re: [Mt 14:33 ]
32 And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. 33 Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” …"

Did Jesus stop what everybody was doing and say to the apostles, hey guys “your confession was a revelation from the Father” and so I’m going to change everybody’s name to a new name, and give you the keys to the kingdom,? Nope! This would be the place to do it if it was based on one’s confession. But it didn’t happen that way. Nothing was said to them by Jesus for their response. It was said only to Peter.

 

[steve_b]

“Catholic” means ’ universal’ group of believers.

Catholic Church was already used in the 1st century to mean the Church Jesus established. Explanation to follow
cl:

And those groups also have a pastor / elder / bishop. And, yes, we Do have God’s Word / Bible – most having 66 books and some have a group of books called the Apocraphal books – situated between Old and New Testaments. There are several internet articles discussing those books – interesting reading. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, etc. all individual books that eventually were bound together with the invention of the printing press.

The NT was written in by and for the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church collected her books and canonized them at the council of Rome in 381.

It’s the same canon that was again validated at the council of Trent. Therer are 72 books of scripture.
cl:

The Counsel of Nicene – there was no Roman Catholic Church until Constantine – the 5th to 7th centuries that there was a Roman Bishop heading Constantines’ Roman church.
.

the Church of Rome, is the Church Paul wrote to.

Be sure to open the links

• Acts 9:31 So the church throughout all ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης ,τῆς ,Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria…"

iow the Church , ] throughout all kata holos] is the Kataholos Church = Catholic ChurchThe English word catholic is a transliteration of the Greek katholikos which is a compound word from kata, which means according to, and holos, which means whole. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means

• St IgnatiusBp of Antioch, ~69 a.d. - ~107 a.d., ordained by apostles, disciple of St John the apostle, called the Church the Catholic Church Epistle to the Smyrnæans of which schismatics won’t be going to heavenEpistle to the Philadelphians
• St Polycarp, Bp Smyrna, disciple of St John called the Church the “Catholic Church” The Martyrdom of Polycarp
• Muratorian canon
• Irenaeus ~180 a.d. wrote “Against Heresies” called the Church the “Catholic Church” Adversus haereses Bk 1 [Chapter 10 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103110.htm) v 3], and also Irenaeus who was taught by Polycarp, teaches all must agree with Rome [Bk 3, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm”]Chapter 3, v 2-3]
• Cyprian~250 a.d. Epistle 54
• The Nicene Creed, 325 a.d., it’s a matter of faith to believe in the “One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church”
• Augustine ~395 There are many other things that most justly keep me in her * bosom. . . . The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, [snip] . And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, [snip] though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.

 

[spina1953]

Almost no bible Christian ever seems to understand what Peter had to say about the ignorant and unstable twisting and distorting the scriptures (2 Peter 3:15-17). It’s always “someone else” who does that. This current example is the most blatant twisting I have heard in quite awhile. The Ethiopian eunuch could not understand the scripture, which was the prophecy of Isaiah. Prophecy. Peter also wrote that no matter of scriptural prophecy is of any private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20).

The difference in the case of the eunuch? Humility. The eunuch was humble enough to admit that he could not understand the prophecy. It was that humility which left his heart open to the Gospel message. When the uncontrolled ego takes hold of the scriptures, they are twisted and distorted as the ego itself is twisted and distorted.

To suggest that these passages somehow endorse the private twisting of scripture is evidence that Peter knew, by the Holy Spirit, exactly what he was writing about. The utter failure of bible alone is demonstrated yet again by this gross distortion that makes void God’s word via Peter.

I was not implying nor suggesting that the passages I used endorse a private twisting of Scripture. I was merely saying that the Ethiopian did not understand what he was reading and that Philip explained the passage the Ethiopian was reading. That was my point. Also though anyone can read and interpret Scripture that does not mean that they understand what it is that they are reading or that their own personal interpretation is correct. Of course the eunuch was humble enough to admit that he could not understand the prophecy. This not always true of everyone, there are those who think that their own personal interpretation is the correct one and all others are incorrect or wrong.