Truly truly I say to you...

[rbarcia]

:yup: Yep! That’s right! He left His Church the Holy Spirit. And that is why the Pope is infallible when it comes to preaching about Faith & Morals. That doesn’t mean that he’s impeccable so don’t say that that’s what I’m saying.

You ignored the verses I quoted, and the question I asked. Why did Paul have to correct Peter?

**
Gal 2

11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
17 “But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”

**

 

[AlegreFe]

Metaphoric was probably the wrong word, but it is clearly not meant to be taken literally, which is the claim made in the OP - that we should accept the literal meaning of Jesus’ words whenever he says “Truly, truly,”

But we ARE to take this verse literally.

Digitonomy:

There are many things the Father will refuse us, even if we ask for them in Jesus’ name. This is for the best.

This is what I said;

People just have to understand that they will get what they ask for if it is God’s Will to give or do for them. But it is not metaphoric.

I said the same thing you said only in different words. So we agree. But I disagree with you when you say it is metaphoric.

 

[AlegreFe]

You ignored the verses I quoted, and the question I asked. Why did Paul have to correct Peter?

You ignored ALL of my post.

And when did you ask me about Paul and Peter?

You better keep track of your posts and make sure you are talking to the right person.

Here this is the post to which I replied and there is no mention of Paul and Peter and Galations at all in that post. With these links in each post with the replies, you can easily check from where the original post came.

But you still haven’t replied to most of my posts that are addressed to you. To those to which you have replied, you ignored most of what was in each post anyway. And I don’t think you will be replying any time soon because you don’t know what to say about them. But that’s okay. You don’t have to reply to any of my posts if you don’t want to as I am finished with you.

 

[VociMike]

You ignored the verses I quoted, and the question I asked. Why did Paul have to correct Peter?

What doctrine of the universal Church was Peter teaching when Paul corrected him?

 

[rbarcia]

You ignored ALL of my post.

And when did you ask me about Paul and Peter?

You better keep track of your posts and make sure you are talking to the right person.

Here this is the post to which I replied and there is no mention of Paul and Peter and Galations at all in that post. With these links in each post with the replies, you can easily check from where the original post came.

But you still haven’t replied to most of my posts that are addressed to you. To those to which you have replied, you ignored most of what was in each post anyway. And I don’t think you will be replying any time soon because you don’t know what to say about them. But that’s okay. You don’t have to reply to any of my posts if you don’t want to as I am finished with you.

Yes, you responded to my question by answering with Papal Infallibility. Then, since you consider Peter to be the first Pope, I show an example, where Paul had to correct Peter.

Of course, you will not say this is a doctrinal matter, but nonetheless, it is a moral issue with regard to treatment of the Gentiles.

I brought up Peter as a response to Papal infallibility.

You did not answer all my questions from the post you linked to.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Yes, you responded to my question by answering with Papal Infallibility. Then, since you consider Peter to be the first Pope, I show an example, where Paul had to correct Peter.

Of course, you will not say this is a doctrinal matter, but nonetheless, it is a moral issue with regard to treatment of the Gentiles.

I brought up Peter as a response to Papal infallibility.

You did not answer all my questions from the post you linked to.

If a reporter stood up and corrected the President, would that correction diminished the President’s Authority?

 

[VociMike]

Yes, you responded to my question by answering with Papal Infallibility. Then, since you consider Peter to be the first Pope, I show an example, where Paul had to correct Peter.

Of course, you will not say this is a doctrinal matter, but nonetheless, it is a moral issue with regard to treatment of the Gentiles.

I see this over and over. People disagree with papal infallibility and at the same time they want to redefine what the Catholic Church means by the concept.

Peter was a sinner. We know that.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Rbarcia, before you question anymore about Peter, here are some links to listen to.

1. Peter Was Not The First Pope?
2. St. Peter Wasn’t The Rock In The New Testament?
3. Jesus Rebuked Peter - How Could He Be Pope?
4. The Apostloic Succession

Just 4 for starters, there are 10 more just change the
fiction01.ra part to lets say 16 for the sixteenth one such as fiction16.ra.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Originally Posted by rbarcia
Yes, you responded to my question by answering with Papal Infallibility. Then, since you consider Peter to be the first Pope, I show an example, where Paul had to correct Peter.

Of course, you will not say this is a doctrinal matter, but nonetheless, it is a moral issue with regard to treatment of the Gentiles.

Was it really a moral issue? What part deals with morality? I suggest you look up the definition of Morality and Moral at dictionary.com.

The choice Peter made to not sit with Gentiles is not a moral issue. It’s a personal preference issue if any thing if not a discipline issue.

So I ask you to explain how it is a moral issue?

 

[jmcrae]

You ignored the verses I quoted, and the question I asked. Why did Paul have to correct Peter?

For the same reason that St. Catherine of Sienna corrected Pope Gregory XI - because his actions did not match his teaching.

In other words, his teaching was infallible, but his actions were not impeccable - which is exactly what we Catholics teach about the Pope.

The fact that our Popes often sin and make mistakes is not news to us - we do what Jesus commanded us to do; we follow their teachings; but we don’t necessarily imitate their actions, unless their actions conform to their teachings. (Matthew 23:3)

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

The Didache, which is the direct teaching of the Apostles, specifically says in Chapter 7, verse (1): "Concerning baptism, baptise thus: Having first rehearsed all these things, “baptise in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” in running water, (2) but if thou hast no running water, baptise in other water, and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. (3) But if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head “in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”…

I believe that most Protestants hold to the authority of the Apostles, so there you have it. How can anyone argue with the Apostles? If you want a good scare, read the rest of it. I always shudder when I do.

Interesting! So as I understand this, the Apostles suggested the best is something tantamount to a river (like Christ’s), second best a bath/baptismal with cold water (yuck) or warm, but if those are not available sprinkling is acceptable. So where’s the beef? Protestants insisting on full immersion aren’t necessarily right but not wholly wrong, and neither is the Churches current practice of sprinkling infants.

I was/am a fan of full immersion myself only because it comes close to both Christs baptism by John and other instances of purification in the Old Testament.

 

[JoeyWarren]

I know some Protestants that claim that the Didache is a Catholic hoax…

 

[Digitonomy]

"Digitonomy:

Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give [it] you

is clearly not meant to be taken literally, which is the claim made in the OP - that we should accept the literal meaning of Jesus’ words whenever he says “Truly, truly,”

But we ARE to take this verse literally.

It’s difficult to have a coherent discussion when you don’t use commonly accepted definitions. In this case, literal - free from exaggeration or embellishment.

 

[exoflare]

But how do you know that it was the Holy Spirit that told you and not an Evil Spirit? How do you know for sure that it is the Holy Spirit if you say that it is. And saying that you just know because you know because it is the Holy Spirit is not enough.
How can you say that it is the Holy Spirit when there are so many different denominations out there? Do you really think that the Holy Spirit would teach contraditions? Do you think the Holy Spirit is confused or something because there are so many different Protestant doctrines out there? HOW DO YOU KNOW?

Yeah I know! I hate when Protestants reduce the “Holy Spirit” to being a euphemism for “my own personal judgement”. Not that they all do this but I’m just saying. So in these cases, we’re left trying to reconcile all the contradicting opinions of millions of Christians out there who have diametrically opposing viewpoints, all under the authority of the same self-proclaimed “guidance of the Holy Spirit”. :banghead:

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Yes, you responded to my question by answering with Papal Infallibility. Then, since you consider Peter to be the first Pope, I show an example, where Paul had to correct Peter.

Of course, you will not say this is a doctrinal matter, but nonetheless, it is a moral issue with regard to treatment of the Gentiles.

I brought up Peter as a response to Papal infallibility.

You did not answer all my questions from the post you linked to.

Papal Infallibility is limited to issues of morals and faith. Popes make mistakes, thats why there are doctors of the church. Some of them taught the Popes about thier faith. But the becuase the Pope and the apostles (Church) can bind and loose on earth and heaven soemthing has to ensure that they cannot make mistakes in areas of faith and morals.

The fact that Peter didn’t continue to do this thing that was wrong would be an argument for Papal infallibilty and not against it. If Peter had denied Paul and said “No, we as Chirstians must stay away from the uncircumsized”, then you might have an arguement.

 

[rbarcia]

Was it really a moral issue? What part deals with morality? I suggest you look up the definition of Morality and Moral at dictionary.com.

The choice Peter made to not sit with Gentiles is not a moral issue. It’s a personal preference issue if any thing if not a discipline issue.

So I ask you to explain how it is a moral issue?

Dictionary.com -

Moral: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:

**

Gal 2

11 Now when Peter[a] had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?[c] 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

**

Peter was doing wrong, Based on the definition from the dictionary, it fits in line with a moral issue.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Dictionary.com -

Moral: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:

**

Gal 2

11 Now when Peter[a] had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him**, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?[c] 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

**Peter was doing wrong, Based on the definition from the dictionary, it fits in line with a moral issue.**Your hight in red is not the subject of the matter. This is: Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.

Peter sat with Gentiles under one situation and did not sit with Gentiles under another. What was immoral about this? Being a hypocrite is not immoral. Peter was choosing his company based on those present. Just as you and I would in many cases in the course of our lives. Let use this example. You and aanother christian friend go to a cafe to get a bite of lunch. After getting your order you go to find a seat. But you find that there are not any vacant tables. But there are two tables with two vacant chair each. At one table is a group of people of undiscernable character. At the other table each person is in possession of a Bible during a little reading during their lunch.

Roland, I can say with 100% confidence that you and your friend would opt to sit down with those with Bible in hand. Think about all the reasons real and imaginary that would cause you to sit down with the bible toters and shy away from the other group.

Like Peter, who feared to sit down with Gentiles while Jews were present, you also would fear to sit down with the other group because of the bible toters. Roland would your actions be just as immoral as you claim Peter was?

One also has to understand the culture of the times as well when looking at this event. As to Paul correcting Peter, that is just speculation. The verses you gave do not indicate that Paul corrected Peter. At best Paul opposed Peter in his actions personally and that is all there is to it. Peter being immoral? No. Peter being a hypocrite? Yes. Being a hypocrite does not imply immorality.

 

[corvidae]

Dictionary.com -

Moral: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:

**

Gal 2

11 Now when Peter[a] had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him**, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?[c] 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Peter was doing wrong, Based on the definition from the dictionary, it fits in line with a moral issue.

Peter may have been doing something immoral. There is nothing in Papal infallibility about doing something immoral. However, Papal infallibility prevents Peter from officially teaching something immoral.
There is a big difference here. You may say that actions speak louder than words, and they do, but it is the teaching, not the action that is protected by infallibility.

A lone Raven

 

[exoflare]

Peter may have been doing something immoral. There is nothing in Papal infallibility about doing something immoral. However, Papal infallibility prevents Peter from officially teaching something immoral.
There is a big difference here. You may say that actions speak louder than words, and they do, but it is the teaching, not the action that is protected by infallibility.

A lone Raven

Yep. You’d think that a person would at least learn what it is they are criticizing, before they go ahead and start criticizing it…?

 

[santaro75]

Your hight in red is not the subject of the matter. This is: Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.

Peter sat with Gentiles under one situation and did not sit with Gentiles under another. What was immoral about this? Being a hypocrite is not immoral. Peter was choosing his company based on those present. Just as you and I would in many cases in the course of our lives.

1cor10:31
So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. Avoid giving offense, whether to Jews or Greeks or the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in every way, not seeking my own benefit but that of the many, that they may be saved.

there is another passage in corintheans where paul talks about being like those around you. but i can’t think of it right now.