M
mercygate
Guest
Good, informative post. Thanks.
Yes it is – Acts 1:26: T}he lot fell on Matthi’as; and he was enrolled with theeleven apostles.
- Status
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Yep! Right on target again MG.
[/quote]
M
Milliardo
Guest
Oohh–yes, forgot about that in Acts. 
M
mikeabele
Guest
You are correct, but the Lord also names Him Simon after naming Him Peter.
Luke 22:31
And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
Luke 24:34
Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.
Correct, and it is the Father who revealed this to Him. Also note how quickly Christ rebukes Peter calling Him satan, when he tells the Lord he will not suffer and die.
Well not really. The Lord uses the singular in referring to the keys(power to bind and loose), but tells His disciples in Matt 18 that they have the power to bind and loose as well. The rest of the apostles have the same authority as Peter.
Actually what Jesus said was “And you are Peter(small stone) and upon this rock(bedrock, foundation) I will build my church…”
Petros(Peter) means a small detachable stone.
Petra means a massive bedrock.
Christ if He meant to name Peter as the rock could have said You are petros and upon this petros I will build my church, but instead Christ said You are Petros, and upon this petra I will build my church.
Peter Himself identifies Christ as the “rock” with the same word used in Matt 16, in His epistle.
1 Peter 2
6Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8And a stone of stumbling, and a rock(petra) of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
M
MGEISING
Guest
YOU ROCK CHURCH MILITANT! GOOD APOLOGETICS!
M
MGEISING
Guest
CCONVERT … wow, awesome! Excellent!
T
TZiggy
Guest
So where do you find reference to “Trinity” in the Bible Seetiger?
M
MGEISING
Guest
HE CAN’T~ NOT TO THE WORD TRINITY !!!
M
mercygate
Guest
This is, of course, the Catholic position. But the Keys were entrusted to Peter alone. Thus, the binding and loosing power held by the other apostles (and their successors, the bishops), holds only when they act in communion with Peter – the BIshop of Rome.
I urge you to explore this dubious claim further on a highly informative thread, “Petros/Petra,” in the scripture forum.
Of course. How can it be otherwise? Does Peter replace Jesus? Certainly not. You note that in Peter’s epistle “petra,” which you claim means “bedrock foundation,” is used for stumbling block, i.e., something small enough to trip over – not the image usually associated with a large, embedded, mass of rock. Again, I refer you to the other thread. This Petros/petra distinction is a tired canard that needs to retire to the dustbin of apologetic futility. It is an embarrassment to serious Protestant scholarship and apologetics.
M
Malachi4U
Guest
Cut him a break already, he’s Baptist after all.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
No one has to show you…It’s right there in the fact that every list of the apostles puts him first. Look that up for yourself. Also check out that he’s mentioned in the NT more than all the other apostles combined…so the fact is that peter never had to declare such a thing because Christ Himself did so and then all the NT writers did as well. You can’t even argue with this because it’s a simple NT FACT.
Why don’t you grasp another straw here. Vicar means representative of Christ and since Christ annointed him so who are you to contest that? Just the fact that Christ gave him the keys to the kindom is enough to qualify Peter’s position and show that you are opposing the Lord’s annointed. I wouldn’t do that if I were you…
He was martyred in Rome…that’s history and buried under the Vatican hill. His body was found under the Vatican during WW2. It has no feet because he told the Romans that he wasn’t worthy to die as his Lord did so they crucified him upside down and they took down his body by just hacking him down. The body was found EXACTLY where early church documents said it was. catholic.com/library/Peter_Roman_Residency.asp
I think you’d have a real tough time convincing Ananias and Saphira of that in Acts 5:1-15.Really? Well then what does it mean that he gave those keys to the Kingdom to Peter? Even in the NT Greek it is singular, proving that Jesus was speaking specifically and only to Cephas.
And that is why the Pope is to this day called “the first among equals” and “The servant of the servants of God”. Oh but you are wrong about the succession. Read it all here:
catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp
And so you feel you have the right to bash the Eucharist, a doctrine that has been Christian since the last supper? If there is no real presence of Christ in that “wafer” then why did St. Paul tell us that to receive it unworthily could cost us our life? Seems to me that St. Paul most definitely believed that that piece of bread and that cup of wine really did miraculously become the body and blood, soul and divinity of the risen Lord Jesus Christ. If it’s not really there then how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. (1st Cor. 11:23-30)
This is no valid argument at all and your allegation is untrue anyway. Today’s Lutherans do not believe the same things that Luther did, Nor do the Baptists or Methodists or most of the Protestants and their myriad subdivisions. However, Catholics today do indeed believe the same things that the apostles taught and handed on to the ECF. The church has grown even as it grew from what it was before Pentecost into what it was in Acts and then in the book of Revelation, and the fact that Peter and all his 264 succesors have safeguarded (by the Holy Spirit’s guidance) the doctrines of Christ for over 2,000 years is just another witness that God is in the Catholic Church as He has kept his promise that the Gates of hell will not prevail against His Church.
Reject it if you want to, but your blood be on your own head.
Pax tecum,
B
BobCatholic
Guest
Which makes it all the greater that Christ would share His rock-ness with Peter in Matthew 16 by declaring him the rock!
Amazing, eh?
We shall become partakers of the divine Nature. Peter partook of the divine nature of ROCK.
Peter ROCKS! And so do his successors!
T
Timothy888
Guest
When the church fell away totally because they didn’t listen to reformers, then it was no longer the Catholic Church, just the church of Rome, who had sinned and not listened, the Catholic (Universal) Church belongs to Christ and hears His calling, no stubborn Church can do this.
Though that isn’t the point, Peter was named the stone on which the church would be built, Jesus the corner stone.
When you place a corner stone, it stays.
The stone Peter was there and stayed there, after him came many stones, each stone similar yet not the same.
Only Jesus remains the corner stone, and as all corner stones he will remain the same, one difference, He doesn’t wear or change.
Great corner stone isn’t He.
There have been many things blocked by the Roman Church through the ages, many Christians martyred, yet there is always a chance, no other church is better or worse, each have a part in the heresy of disobeying Christ and His words. As well as the people he taught directly, including Paul and those who have been taught since.
Follow Lord Jesus Christ and you won’t go wrong, follow the teachings of men and you will.
T
Timothy888
Guest
I think you’d have a real tough time convincing Ananias and Saphira of that in Acts 5:1-15.Really? Well then what does it mean that he gave those keys to the Kingdom to Peter? Even in the NT Greek it is singular, proving that Jesus was speaking specifically and only to Cephas.
Not at all, they promised something and didn’t deliver, they were condemned by the Holy Spirit, through their promise to Him, not by Peter.
They died.
Peter only pointed to the authority in this entire text. Well maybe they would agree with that
God bless you all
S
scylla
Guest
Timothy,
If you are going to contend that the Church changed teachings at the time of the reformers then you should provide some background and support for your contention.
Just show how, from Church teaching that they fell away. This should be easy to do and well documented as you imply.
The authoritive teaching of Christ passed on in that He ordained men to ministry for Him, who in turn ordained other men to follow. There is the example of Simon Magus who wanted to be ordained by his own will which is not what the Bible teaches. (Acts 8:9-21) There is only a succession who are called, with authority being passed down either immediately through Jesus Christ(example the apostles) or mediately through their successors. Not by one’s own doing, this is a tradition of men which started with Martin Luther.
Your statement then implies that Jesus didn’t properly setup a Church and it fell away thus breaking his promise that the Church would be indefectable. Men might be corrupt or do bad things in the Church which has happened in the past, but this doesn’t mean that Jesus’s Church is corrupt, or give anyone the right to break away. Did any of the apostles start their own Church when they saw Judas betray Jesus, if they had would they be justified in doing so?
You state that Jesus was only talking to Cephas? Then this would mean that the authority of Peter would only last until he died, then it would be to each his own? How would this make sense with the gates of hell not prevailing? Or only until Peter died? Didn’t Jesus say he would be with them to the end of time?
I feel it is much more logical to trust in a Jesus who would create an authoritive Church that would last longer than a lifetime.
Unless I am trying to justify a breaking away then I would have to deny this, at every possible interpretation to justify my position.
What are you contending? That the Church fell away at the time of the reformers? or at the time of Peter’s death? Can you be specific so I can understand your position better. I will always specify my position precisely and if you would like some background feel free to ask.
In Christ
Scylla
If you are going to contend that the Church changed teachings at the time of the reformers then you should provide some background and support for your contention.
Just show how, from Church teaching that they fell away. This should be easy to do and well documented as you imply.
The authoritive teaching of Christ passed on in that He ordained men to ministry for Him, who in turn ordained other men to follow. There is the example of Simon Magus who wanted to be ordained by his own will which is not what the Bible teaches. (Acts 8:9-21) There is only a succession who are called, with authority being passed down either immediately through Jesus Christ(example the apostles) or mediately through their successors. Not by one’s own doing, this is a tradition of men which started with Martin Luther.
Your statement then implies that Jesus didn’t properly setup a Church and it fell away thus breaking his promise that the Church would be indefectable. Men might be corrupt or do bad things in the Church which has happened in the past, but this doesn’t mean that Jesus’s Church is corrupt, or give anyone the right to break away. Did any of the apostles start their own Church when they saw Judas betray Jesus, if they had would they be justified in doing so?
You state that Jesus was only talking to Cephas? Then this would mean that the authority of Peter would only last until he died, then it would be to each his own? How would this make sense with the gates of hell not prevailing? Or only until Peter died? Didn’t Jesus say he would be with them to the end of time?
I feel it is much more logical to trust in a Jesus who would create an authoritive Church that would last longer than a lifetime.
Unless I am trying to justify a breaking away then I would have to deny this, at every possible interpretation to justify my position.
What are you contending? That the Church fell away at the time of the reformers? or at the time of Peter’s death? Can you be specific so I can understand your position better. I will always specify my position precisely and if you would like some background feel free to ask.
In Christ
Scylla
M
mark_a
Guest
You have disproved the Catholic path! Thanks so much! Please tell me now which path to take.
You need not eliminate any other denominations (thereby saving yourself some typing time) because you have convinced me that you alone have correctly interpreted Scripture and all of history. PM me with the the name of the denom to join.
Please confirm that you alone interpreted Scripture from the original manuscripts and your teachings have not been watered down or corrupted by anyone else.
Please give only biblical references. We all know that if it’s not in the original manuscripts, it didn’t happen.
In fact, we now know there have been no martyrs since the last of the original apostles, because they aren’t in the bible.
To my ex-fellow Catholics-- Quick, follow me as I follow seetiger33, before it’s too late!! We now have the truth!!!
M
mikeabele
Guest
If truth is what is sought in this discussion, Peter settles the matter.
1 Peter 2:4-10 (NABWRNT)
4 Come to him, a living stone(lithos), rejected by human beings but chosen and precious in the sight of God,
5 and, like living stones(lithos), let yourselves be built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
6 For it says in scripture:
“Behold, I am laying a stone(lithos) in Zion,
a cornerstone, chosen and precious,and whoever believes in it shall not be put to shame.”
7 Therefore, its value is for you who have faith, but for those without faith:
“The stone(lithos) which the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”
8 and
“A stone(lithos) that will make people stumble,
and a rock(petra) that will make them fall.”They stumble by disobeying the word, as is their destiny.
9 But you are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own, so that you may announce the praises” of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
10 Once you were “no people”
but now you are God’s people;
you “had not received mercy”
but now you have received mercy.
Also note the priesthood of all believers. Peter knows nothing of a “special” class of priests like those of Levi. Believers are also brought into the family of God, never to be disowned.
1 Peter 2:4-10 (NABWRNT)
4 Come to him, a living stone(lithos), rejected by human beings but chosen and precious in the sight of God,
5 and, like living stones(lithos), let yourselves be built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
6 For it says in scripture:
“Behold, I am laying a stone(lithos) in Zion,
a cornerstone, chosen and precious,and whoever believes in it shall not be put to shame.”
7 Therefore, its value is for you who have faith, but for those without faith:
“The stone(lithos) which the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”
8 and
“A stone(lithos) that will make people stumble,
and a rock(petra) that will make them fall.”They stumble by disobeying the word, as is their destiny.
9 But you are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own, so that you may announce the praises” of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
10 Once you were “no people”
but now you are God’s people;
you “had not received mercy”
but now you have received mercy.
Also note the priesthood of all believers. Peter knows nothing of a “special” class of priests like those of Levi. Believers are also brought into the family of God, never to be disowned.
M
mercygate
Guest
The New Testament is clear on the distinction of ministries: bishops, elders (i.e. “presbyters” – which is, etymologycally, “priest,”), and deacons. Therefore, the idea that there is no distinction between the priesthood of all believers and the ministerial priesthood is not scriptural, since those set apart for “ministry” receive the laying on of hands for that service.
In Catholic ecclesiology, although the common and ministerial priesthood are distinguished, as they are in Scripture, there is no *contradiction *inherent in that distinction.
From The Catechism of the Catholic Church:
R
RyanL
Guest
Mike,
Mercygate brings something up in the Catechism that I would be interested in knowing your opinion on - “Melchizedek”.
Genesis 14
Abram, who was Abraham, the Father of Many Nations, gave tithe to Melchizedek? This priest was one to whom this greatest of OT fathers would give homage? What made him so great? (Heb 7:1-8)
Hebrews 5, speaking of Christ:
Hebrews 6:
Hebrews 7
Are you a priest in the order of Melchizedek?
I ask because I want to know, not to belittle or badger.
p.s.,
Fatherhood is a great metaphore, but we are referred to more often in the bible as the “bride” of Christ - and according to your theology a bride ***can ***divorce her husband.
Sincerely,
RyanL
M
mikeabele
Guest
Mercygate,
It is clear every believer is a priest. That being said the NT makes only two distinctions of titles. The first group was the diakonoi, or deacons which means servants (I Timothy 3:8-13). Their role was to provide practical service to the church in areas such as dispensing food to the needy (Acts 6:1-6) and caring for widows (I Timothy 5:9-16).
The second group was the presbuteroi (I Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). The word literally means the *older men *and is usually translated elders. The title stresses the spiritual maturity and experience needed to qualify for the position.
The NT also refers to elders as the episkopoi, meaning the over-watchers, overseers, or bishops. The title emphasizes the role of an elder in watching over and caring for the flock. The NT makes it clear that the elders and bishops were one and the same group. A comparison of Acts 20:17 with Acts 20:28 and of Titus 1:5 with Titus 1:7 confirms this point.
It is clear every believer is a priest. That being said the NT makes only two distinctions of titles. The first group was the diakonoi, or deacons which means servants (I Timothy 3:8-13). Their role was to provide practical service to the church in areas such as dispensing food to the needy (Acts 6:1-6) and caring for widows (I Timothy 5:9-16).
The second group was the presbuteroi (I Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). The word literally means the *older men *and is usually translated elders. The title stresses the spiritual maturity and experience needed to qualify for the position.
The NT also refers to elders as the episkopoi, meaning the over-watchers, overseers, or bishops. The title emphasizes the role of an elder in watching over and caring for the flock. The NT makes it clear that the elders and bishops were one and the same group. A comparison of Acts 20:17 with Acts 20:28 and of Titus 1:5 with Titus 1:7 confirms this point.
- Status