The historicity of the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Isaiah45_9
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I would like to point out in mho that first of all in the Four Gospels Peter is ranked first among all the Apostles, there must be a reason for this or why would the Gospel writers include it in their Gospel accounts? In Matthew 16: 13-20 Jesus tells Peter that he is the rock that He (Jesus) will build His Church on. He does not say to all of the Apostles that He will build His Church on them but only on Peter. Now why would Matthew write this? What was the reason as to why Matthew includes this passage on his Gospel account if not to imply that Peter is to be the head of the Church Jesus is building though them (the Apostles). Why not just say that Jesus wanted all of the Apostles to be the rock that He would build His Church on? It seems to me that Jesus is saying that His Church is to be built on Peter, that Peter is the rock which implies that Peter is solid and Jesus’ Church will be built on this solid foundation that is Peter, which also implies that it is to Peter to govern the Church with the rest of the Apostles supporting Peter.
Code:
It seems to me that Matthew's Gospel account in 16 is saying that Jesus is saying that Peter is to be the head of the Church. Jesus is not saying that all of the Apostles are to be head of the Church or to start separate Churches but what Jesus is saying is that Peter is to be the head, that is authority over all of the Apostles and the Churches that are founded by them. Not to have an head is to bring chaos disunity.
Again gave ECF quotes that challenge or add to your view of Matt. Furthermore it says nothing of succession beyond Peter being the leader of the apostles.
 
benhur;11968557]One must qualify that from a particular time, to understand why no one can just use the apostles creed anymore for differentiation.
:confused:
To say everything Catholic is apostolic (unchanged) is as problematic as Protestants saying everything is Holy Spirit led.
To suggest that the CC teaches something not believed by the apostles is cool, but tantamount to suggesting that the HS failed, at some point in history, to guide Jesus’ church, in terms of doctrinal truth i.e. the sin of man was too much for the Holy Spirit to continue to guide Jesus’ church into all truth, just as the HS did in the first century. Nah…👍
 
Again gave ECF quotes that challenge or add to your view of Matt. Furthermore it says nothing of succession beyond Peter being the leader of the apostles.
Hi benhur: I guess it depends on who one wants to interpret Matthew 16. I was asking questions as why did Matthew write this? What was his reason for doing so? I was not using ECF’s quote as I am asking the questions and thought someone might respond to it with their own thinking as to Matthew’s reasoning for writing the passage found in 16.

I think it important to try and understand the reasoning behind Matthew’s writing that passage 16 in his Gospel. Why did he think people hearing and reading it need to know, and why if one thinks that Peter is not the head of the Church with universal jurisdiction over all of the Churches in union then why write why the passage?
 
Again gave ECF quotes that challenge or add to your view of Matt. Furthermore it says nothing of succession beyond Peter being the leader of the apostles.
And where does Jesus or the twelve teach all would cease upon their deaths?

Second, you are insisting on reading great deal such the mentioning of succession. As I told you when you cited another ECF, did all the post-Apostolic Fathers mention a NT canon? The deep complexity of the Trinity? The Hypostatic Union? The simple fact it is not mentioned does not prove they did not believe it or denied it.
 
Again gave ECF quotes that challenge or add to your view of Matt. Furthermore it says nothing of succession beyond Peter being the leader of the apostles.
Are you suggesting that Peter was in fact the principal leader of Jesus’ church (along with the other apostles, including Paul) once Jesus left this world (ascension), but that leadership ended once Peter left the world (death)?
 
Are you suggesting that Peter was in fact the principal leader of Jesus’ church (along with the other apostles, including Paul) once Jesus left this world (ascension), but that leadership ended once Peter left the world (death)?
Yup! And it is clear what has happened with such a belief: Denominations with no end in sight.
 
Hi benhur: I guess it depends on who one wants to interpret Matthew 16. I was asking questions as why did Matthew write this? What was his reason for doing so? I was not using ECF’s quote as I am asking the questions and thought someone might respond to it with their own thinking as to Matthew’s reasoning for writing the passage found in 16.

I think it important to try and understand the reasoning behind Matthew’s writing that passage 16 in his Gospel. Why did he think people hearing and reading it need to know, and why if one thinks that Peter is not the head of the Church with universal jurisdiction over all of the Churches in union then why write why the passage?
It’s simple.The biggest thing you can ever know/confess is that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, your savior. Secondly, that by divine revelation you shall know this. Thirdly, that is how the church is built, preaching this. And fourthly, the gates of hell shall not prevail against God’s binding thru us, beginning with Peter.
 
Are you suggesting that Peter was in fact the principal leader of Jesus’ church (along with the other apostles, including Paul) once Jesus left this world (ascension), but that leadership ended once Peter left the world (death)?
Peter was first amongst equals, a one and only title during the ministry of the twelve apostles. As you don’t have a "twelve original " anymore , you don’t have a “first amongst equals anymore”.
 
:confused:
To suggest that the CC teaches something not believed by the apostles is cool, but tantamount to suggesting that the HS failed, at some point in history, to guide Jesus’ church, in terms of doctrinal truth i.e. the sin of man was too much for the Holy Spirit to continue to guide Jesus’ church into all truth, just as the HS did in the first century. Nah…👍
No, it just means you went beyond what he is saying .What He is saying never disappears, hence still guiding.You have insisted before perfection is not needed by the church for her to still be the church.
 
It’s simple.The biggest thing you can ever know/confess is that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, your savior. Secondly, that by divine revelation you shall know this. Thirdly, that is how the church is built, preaching this. And fourthly, the gates of hell shall not prevail against God’s binding thru us, beginning with Peter.
Hi benhur: I understand what you posted but do not understand what that has to do with the comment and questions I asked.
 
“When, Where, and How did the Church that Jesus founded disappear?”

I don’t believe it disappeared. Neither do I believe that any particular denomination- neither Roman Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc. etc.- has any valid claim to being the only true church, one true church, original true church, whatever. Perhaps we should all remember Luke 9:50 and Mark 9:40. 'Nuff said.🙂
 
Hi benhur: I understand what you posted but do not understand what that has to do with the comment and questions I asked.
You asked why did Matthew wrote inspirationally chapter 16 (the rock discourse) which I thought I answered. Another words there is plenty of reasoning for the writing even if you don’t see Peter as the universal head /office /succession in it. Certainly some of the other apostles still wondered after this discourse which would be greater and which would be Jesus’s right hand "man’’.
 
“When, Where, and How did the Church that Jesus founded disappear?”

I don’t believe it disappeared. Neither do I believe that any particular denomination- neither Roman Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc. etc.- has any valid claim to being the only true church, one true church, original true church, whatever. Perhaps we should all remember Luke 9:50 and Mark 9:40. 'Nuff said.🙂
Howdy Dancer. U made me look up the verse . I like it . The Spirit brought that verse to both our remembrances for I have "used’ the verse myself before at CAF and is fitting ( I am just bad at remembering where the verse is found). Blessings. Actually CC agrees and somewhat admits "other churches’ have salvation also , howbeit thru the graces of the CC (gentum luciem or something).
 
Howdy Dancer. U made me look up the verse . I like it . The Spirit brought that verse to both our remembrances for I have "used’ the verse myself before at CAF and is fitting ( I am just bad at remembering where the verse is found). Blessings. Actually CC agrees and somewhat admits "other churches’ have salvation also , howbeit thru the graces of the CC (gentum luciem or something).
Howdy Ben Hur. And, of course, salvation comes only through faith and by the grace of God. To try to limit the Lord Jesus Christ to one group of believers in Him is not only un-biblical, it is theologically absurd. Every believer has total and personal access to Christ, no institution or intermediaries required.
 
Peter was first amongst equals, a one and only title during the ministry of the twelve apostles. As you don’t have a "twelve original " anymore , you don’t have a “first amongst equals anymore”.
The CC’s leadership ended once Peter and the other apostles died?
 
benhur;11979779]No, it just means you went beyond what he is saying .What He is saying never disappears, hence still guiding.
Do you believe that God guides the CC to believe one thing, the Lutheran church to believe another, and the Baptist or any other church who views the Eucharist as symbolic to believe another?
You have insisted before perfection is not needed by the church for her to still be the church.
Perfection is not needed. Only God is perfect, and only God can perfectly guide His church regarding doctrine, faith and morals. We just have to find that one church in a world with so many man-made churches.

I thought you mentioned that you believe that God does in fact preserve those doctrinal truths (that he taught when he walked the earth and passed on to the apostles at Pentecost via the HS) - within His church so that every generation has access to it? If so then how does God preserve truth, in a world with so many conflicting truths about Jesus’ teachings?

For example I can know the truth about the Eucharist (no matter what a church teaches on the matter) because God preserved the truth within His church, as opposed to a church founded by mere men, such as myself, Martin Luther etc.?
 
Because the doctrine of original sin is so important, why didn’t Jesus teach it?
 
You asked why did Matthew wrote inspirationally chapter 16 (the rock discourse) which I thought I answered. Another words there is plenty of reasoning for the writing even if you don’t see Peter as the universal head /office /succession in it. Certainly some of the other apostles still wondered after this discourse which would be greater and which would be Jesus’s right hand "man’’.
Hi benhur: I think that the question is why did Matthew write this particular passage 16? and what did he (Matthew) want his readers to understand about that passage? And how did the readers understood the passage at that time? and what did Jesus mean when He said what He said in Matthew 16? If Jesus intended or meant something else then Peter as universal head of the Church Jesus was going to build on him why did He (Jesus) just say that? As to the other Apostles as to who would be greater etc. How do we know that it is tied in with Matthew’s passage 16, could it be that it is referring to something else that was talked about by the Apostles at a different point in time?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top