The historicity of the Church

[benhur]

U-huh and the divinity has also called others the Rock. So yes, a 500 year old man-made invention that ONLY God calls himself the rock and makes no exceptions elsewhere.

Please enlighten me but where else besides the disputed Matt 16 does this occur ?

 

[benhur]

Interesting last couple of pages there on the evaluating Peter, Rock, pebbles.

Should we not look at Jesus’ tribe as an example or hint about earth after Jesus?

Did Jesus name an equal while leading the tribe? (in unison - of course not -)

Then it shouldn’t be far fetched for him to name a successor to lead His Church.

Didn’t know the tribes had sole leaders .jesus did have friends, even those that were one with himself. He called them apostles,disciples and trained them to be just like himself,and do even greater things

 

[benhur]

In most languages grammar is important in conveying the intended meaning the writer wants the reader to know and understand. In many languages words ending in a are not used with words ending in o and words ending in o are not used with words ending in a. But this does not change the intended meaning of the sentence, so Kepha and kephos can mean the same thing it would make no sense at all to say one is a rock and then turn around and say that one is a pebble, which does make ay sense and vey doubtful that the writer wanted the reader to think first one is rock then pebble. This argument that somehow because in the Greek words that are the same but ending in either o or a are different meanings is trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

The mountain out of mole hill goes both ways, and let us be thankful for agreement that there is at least a hill.

 

[benhur]

benhur;11997631:

The promise was that the Davidic Kingdom would always be here.

You’re trying to use human reasoning to show that, in you opinion, we don’t “need” a prime minister. Even though your reasoning is quite erroneous (I contend that we need a prime minister more than ever when the King is not physically present – it has NOTHING to do with a palace of any sort), I think that the fact that Jesus set St. Peter up AS the prime minister says far more about this.

On the contrary we both agree on the need for a minister, even a prime One. You just think it must be an earthly one now and I say not yet, for we have a heavenly one on earth now. If you want peter and his successors to rule, I say they will at the second coming.

 

[benhur]

You’re ignoring all the scriptures that tell us that the Davidic Kingdom was a precursor and foreshadow of the Heavenly Kingdom. God makes good from evil. The evil was the move from a theocracy to a kingdom. The good that God made out of it was a perpetual kingdom, the Davidic Kingdom, that would always be led by Christ. And the fact of history that you’re ignoring is that Jesus instituted an “over the house” OFFICE, just as in the Davidic Kingdom.

You want to rebel against the “over the house” that Jesus established. Fine.
But, just as Korah before you, you do so at your own peril.

And we see in Acts 15, for example, just HOW the Holy Spirit guides … through the Prime Minister.
Ac 15:28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:

Notice how St. Peter speaks for the Holy Spirit, or, better, how the Holy Spirit speaks THROUGH St. Peter!!

We see in many other places how the Holy Spirit uses the Apostles in general, and St. Peter as the chief Apostle in particular, to convey His message, just as He does today through the pope AND councils:

Ac 1:2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.

We are close for I see also that the holy spirt speaks thru the apostles and peter.I see one vicar the HS, using twelve, the “us”’ not too mention the other elders etc,- us is us,not just “one”.

 

[ffg]

Didn’t know the tribes had sole leaders .jesus did have friends, even those that were one with himself. He called them apostles,disciples and trained them to be just like himself,and do even greater things

We’ll that is an important point for you to consider. In general tribes have leaders, today we might call them coaches, CEO’s, in baseball, manager. For native Americans, chief.

You can’t have a final say of good v bad, right v wrong, objective direction setting, with a vote from a board. Voting only allows for majority opinion. By it’s nature, a group with multiple leaders means voting results are subjective. ( thus why there are so many denominations, and more each day, the voting losers start new churches with their way)

Jesus was the sole leader of his tribe.

He then chose someone to be the leader of his very small group when he was gone. Quite similar to how they lived during his public life.

It would be quite confusing to lead one way and expect those you are teaching to live via a different method.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

FathersKnowBest;11998876:

On the contrary we both agree on the need for a minister, even a prime One. You just think it must be an earthly one now and I say not yet, for we have a heavenly one on earth now. If you want peter and his successors to rule, I say they will at the second coming.

Does one need a pastor in your view?

 

[benhur]

benhur;12001376:

Does one need a pastor in your view?

Yes, to shepherd but not to “rule”.

 

[ffg]

IgnatianPhilo;12003450:

Yes, to shepherd but not to “rule”.

Obviously, I’m assuming you are referring to the Pope (if not, please clarify)…

As is easy to see from inside or outside of the Church, many sheep in the Church do not follow, or worse, they even contradict basic Catholic teaching publicly and are not excommunicated.

Thus, to claim the Pope as a ruler is contra-reality where even from the outside one can see such is not the case.

 

[benhur]

benhur;12005268:

Obviously, I’m assuming you are referring to the Pope (if not, please clarify)…

As is easy to see from inside or outside of the Church, many sheep in the Church do not follow, or worse, they even contradict basic Catholic teaching publicly and are not excommunicated.

Thus, to claim the Pope as a ruler is contra-reality where even from the outside one can see such is not the case.

No, you asked if one needs a pastor and I say yes, to shepherd more than rule.

 

[ffg]

ffg;12007502:

No, you asked if one needs a pastor and I say yes, to shepherd more than rule.

Ok, Thanks for the clarification.

I didn’t ask, but that’s ok.

I would think it would be a given that a pastor was a guide vs a ruler, but surely that’s what I get for assuming eh?

Have a good one!

 

[spina1953]

IgnatianPhilo;12003450:

Yes, to shepherd but not to “rule”.

Hi benhur: Peter and his successors as well as the Bishops, successors of the Apostles are the earthly shepherds of the Church not rulers of the Church. They are earthly shepherds till Christ returns.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Originally Posted by FathersKnowBest
Not in Koine Greek. This may have been true in the more distant past Greek, in some poetic writings only, but this is not true in the Greek that was used for scripture. There is no distinction.

What in the world are you talking about?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

On the contrary we both agree on the need for a minister, even a prime One. You just think it must be an earthly one now and I say not yet, for we have a heavenly one on earth now. If you want peter and his successors to rule, I say they will at the second coming.

Yeah, but I’m not basing my judgement on human reasoning, as you are.

It’s evident from scripture that the keys, bestowed by the King, represented this office.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

We are close for I see also that the holy spirt speaks thru the apostles and peter.I see one vicar the HS, using twelve, the “us”’ not too mention the other elders etc,- us is us,not just “one”.

Yet you refuse to acknowledge that He speaks through Peter.

Question: to whom did Ananias lie?

 

[benhur]

benhur;12007582:

Ok, Thanks for the clarification.

I didn’t ask, but that’s ok.

I would think it would be a given that a pastor was a guide vs a ruler, but surely that’s what I get for assuming eh?

Have a good one!

tutaloo

 

[joe371]

Cube2;11998430]

Yes, there should be church governance!
There is a difference between Catholic governance and the Apostolic governance and that is why the Catholic doctrine differs from the Protestant’s doctrine.

 

[spina1953]

Cube2;11998430]

 

[joe371]

[benhur;12001303]Some fathers agree with you but will go on to say it is even more than just peter keeping in context what just transpired with peter. The “this” is just not peter. It is the peter who just confessed Christ as messiah per divine revelation.

Catechism of the CC agrees with you. Simon, renamed Rock, is the rock on which Jesus’ church is built. Jesus is the divine Rock on which His church is built. The church built on Rock is based on Simons confession. The three are not mutually exclusive. The difference is: non-Catholics deny the second claim. Of course I understand why though…

Peter represents the expression of God’s gift of faith that Christ is Messiah unto salvation that the gates of hell can not stop.

The gates will never prevail against the church built on Peter, based on Simon’s confession, with Jesus as the divine Cornerstone holding the whole thing together. Without the Cornerstone, the church built on Peter would fail miserably.

Again I know what you mean by closest noun to the “this”.

Grammatically? Cool.

However, what just occurred in the previous discourse/confession/revelation is much bigger than simon the man,and is what made him peter,rock/stone the apostle.

OK. However, God still changed his name to signify something important. What was that reason? Why?

What is more important, that peter is stone or rock, or how he got to be that way ?

What seems to be of the utmost importance is the fact that Jesus, based on Simon’s confession/profession that Jesus was the Son of God, changed Simon’s name, and he did it for a reason.

What is more important, his jurisdiction or his proclamation ?

His proclamation is important because; what Jesus says because of it - very important. That is how we can identify the church which Satan will never vanquish.

Others have said his jurisdiction was in the proclaiming, not in being over the other apostles (for all would proclaim).

All this is wonderfully illustrated by the use of the larger Petra’s and the smaller petros for peter yet of the same stock and one on top off or from the other.

The only way the petros/petra argument makes any sense at all to me, is if it was said like this: you are (Simon) petros but on this other petra, (Jesus) I will build my church.

If that were the case then why bother even renaming Simon???

Remember, we both agree about Simon’s confession, as does the CC…

 

[benhur]

Catechism of the CC agrees with you. Simon, renamed Rock, is the rock on which Jesus’ church is built. Jesus is the divine Rock on which His church is built. The church built on Rock is based on Simons confession. The three are not mutually exclusive. The difference is: non-Catholics deny the second claim. Of course I understand why though…
The gates will never prevail against the church built on Peter, based on Simon’s confession, with Jesus as the divine Cornerstone holding the whole thing together. Without the Cornerstone, the church built on Peter would fail miserably.
Grammatically? Cool.
OK. However, God still changed his name to signify something important. What was that reason? Why?
What seems to be of the utmost importance is the fact that Jesus, based on Simon’s confession/profession that Jesus was the Son of God, changed Simon’s name, and he did it for a reason.
His proclamation is important because; what Jesus says because of it - very important. That is how we can identify the church which Satan will never vanquish.

Pretty good . Remember my question way back when…as to when did Peter get renamed ? Was he not already Kephas from the beginning 1;42 ? Not sure…Secondly, on your statement about gates of hell I would say Christ is the cornerstone, then the twelve apostles, then every saint, whom Peter says are living stones of that "edifice’’ (saints as in in heaven and on earth). While we might deemphasize any Petrine office we may emphasize that the church is really us, so that our confession, like Peter’s , withstand hell itself.