Unstructured Thread...

[wisdomseeker]

Aua!
There Is Beautifull! Thanks!

 

[VARC]

There was no “Orthodox Church” before they left us.

They were Catholic Churches, but once they left us, they changed their name to Orthodox Churches.

That’s begging the question. Did the Anitoch, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem leave the Catholic Church or did Rome? And they didn’t “change” their name to the Orthodox church. They refer to their church as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church or the Orthodox Catholic Church.

For them, revelation just stopped…as if God stopped talking to their religious leaders.

A very odd thing for a catholic to say. The RCC professes that revelation ended at the death of the last Apostle.

Their growth of religious understanding ceased. Nothing else was revealed to them. I don’t know when this happened, but I’m assuming it was after their rejection of The Church. And thus, their Churches stopped growing as well.

Post Hoc, ergo Prompter Hoc. In the Orthodox church the point of an Ecumenical is to weed out heresy from the within the Church not to create new doctrine. Since the schism with Rome, there has not been widespread heresy in the Orthodox Church. The West on the other hand has been shattered with heresy since the schism. I’m assuming that’s because they left the Church.

Even in The Bible, there were issues that weren’t fully resolved or understood when Jesus was around and weren’t confirmed until “after” Jesus left The Church physically. In fact, the very Bible didn’t exist in Jesus time as a collection of books or even as written Scripture. “That” in itself is a “change” from how Jesus taught. Jesus never quoted from The Catholic Letters of The New Testament…so are they “not” to be included in The Bible?

You are arguing way off point. The canon of scripture is an argument taylored for protestants. It doesn’t excuse Rome from changing the Creed.

If Christianity was like what The Orthodox Church claims to be, if we were to “really” become orthodox in what the word really means, we’d have no Bible and no doctrines. We would have to be as The Apostles and Jesus were “while” Jesus was around.

I’m beggining to think that you don’t know very much about Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy literally means “right worship”. “Right worship” requires right doctrine and has always included scripture

Unless you can show me where The Orthodox Church existed as it does today “before” they left universal Christianity? .

The Orthodox Church today uses the same Creed, adminsters the sacraments in the same manner, and professes the same beliefs as the Church before the schism. What more do you want? Rome has changed the Creed, changed the manner in which they administer the sacraments, and added doctrines to the faith of the Fathers.

And I am not saying this to you offensively. I’m just pointing out the very real truths that the claims that The Orthodox Church has never changed from original Christianity is not true

Define “original” Christianity. The most authoratative expression of Christianity is the Nicene-Constantinopolian Creed. The practice of “original” Christianity were communion of both kinds and triple immersion baptism.

and that they never existed before they left The Church as they exist today. That alone is change.

Again, you’re begging the question. The same charge can be leveled at Rome.

Maybe they could say that they didn’t change since 1054 AD and I’ll accept that, but Christianity has always grown and evolved and has always been revealed new things by The Holy Spirit.

Congratulations. You are the first catholic I have known to admit that the Roman Catholic Church proclaims “new” doctrines “revealed” by the Holy Spirit to the pope of Rome. Your honesty has gained my respect however I can’t begin to explain my problems with that belief.

Jesus never said “Grow up until a certain point and stop growing after that.”

No, but St Paul said, “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!” Gal 1:8

In fact, He did say that things would be revealed to His followers as The Holy Spirit came unto them. This is “changing” from when they were with Him to when they were without Him.

Yes, but the revelation of God to the Church ended upon the death of the last Apostle. “Original Christianity” never taught that the Holy Spirit continues to “talk” to the pope of Rome and “reveal” “new” doctrines to him.

 

[2ndGen]

That’s begging the question. Did the Anitoch, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem leave the Catholic Church or did Rome? And they didn’t “change” their name to the Orthodox church. They refer to their church as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church or the Orthodox Catholic Church.

 

[2ndGen]

The Orthodox Church today uses the same Creed, adminsters the sacraments in the same manner, and professes the same beliefs as the Church before the schism. What more do you want? Rome has changed the Creed, changed the manner in which they administer the sacraments, and added doctrines to the faith of the Fathers.

Which Orthodox Church? All of them? Or “some” of them?

Again, you grew only up until the schism and once you left, you stopped growing. How many sacraments did they practice in the first century? The 2nd? The 3rd? Not all were practiced until The Catholic Church decided what they would be. You guys took off with our practices. The Orthodox Church didn’t create them or reveal them becasue they didn’t exist until “after” the schism.

And we can change the creed all we want…Jesus did the same thing with the Pharisees. The truth is not stagnant and even after thousands of years, Jesus still revealed new teachings and added unto The Law. And He empowered the Church to carry on in His work as well. Remember, He gave that power to The Universal (Catholic) Church…not to one certain group of Christians, but to the entire body of Christians that didn’t reject those He sent.

Define “original” Christianity. The most authoratative expression of Christianity is the Nicene-Constantinopolian Creed. The practice of “original” Christianity were communion of both kinds and triple immersion baptism.

Where was anybody in The Bible triply immersed? How could anyone “in” a “household” be immersed when they were baptized? People didn’t have tubs in their homes or pools. The couldn’t be baptized by immersion when the Bible states that households were baptized…so would their bapstisms be invalid?

Congratulations. You are the first catholic I have known to admit that the Roman Catholic Church proclaims “new” doctrines “revealed” by the Holy Spirit to the pope of Rome. Your honesty has gained my respect however I can’t begin to explain my problems with that belief.

All day every day…The Holy Spirit resides in our Church.

Apostolic succession. Jesus never said that His authority had to remain with the Apostles alone. In fact, He clearly stated that whatever they taught had to be obeyed so if they taught new doctrines that Jesus didn’t teach, they are to be held by us.

Again, we’re not a dead Church, but a living Church.

Do Orthodox Christians practice “everything” that they practiced up until the schism without having changed any doctrines since then?

(please say yes, please say yes, please say yes… :dancing: )

I have a question for you…did Saint Andrew operate independantly of his older brother Saint Peter?

And if he didn’t, why did his disciples “change” that manner of their religious practice?

No, but St Paul said, “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!” Gal 1:8

Then if an angel or The Holy Spirit inspired men to teach doctrines that weren’t contrary to what The Apostles taught, they were to be accepted.

Show me one Apostle that taught “The Bible”?

Yes, but the revelation of God to the Church ended upon the death of the last Apostle. “Original Christianity” never taught that the Holy Spirit continues to “talk” to the pope of Rome and “reveal” “new” doctrines to him.

Ok, So tell me which Apostle in The Bible talked about The Doctrine of The Trinity? Which discussed the “doctrine” of Salvation? Not a “teaching”, but a “doctrine”. Which Apostles revealed The Doctrine of The Divinity of Christ?

None of those doctrines existed in The Holy Bible, therefore, they were revealed to The Church “after” (in some cases, hundreds of years after) John died.

Also, there’s not such thing as “the pope of Rome”.

 

[wisdomseeker]

That’s begging the question. Did the Anitoch, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem leave the Catholic Church or did Rome? And they didn’t “change” their name to the Orthodox church. They refer to their church as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church or the Orthodox Catholic Church.

A very odd thing for a catholic to say. The RCC professes that revelation ended at the death of the last Apostle.

Post Hoc, ergo Prompter Hoc. In the Orthodox church the point of an Ecumenical is to weed out heresy from the within the Church not to create new doctrine. Since the schism with Rome, there has not been widespread heresy in the Orthodox Church. The West on the other hand has been shattered with heresy since the schism. I’m assuming that’s because they left the Church.

You are arguing way off point. The canon of scripture is an argument taylored for protestants. It doesn’t excuse Rome from changing the Creed.

I’m beggining to think that you don’t know very much about Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy literally means “right worship”. “Right worship” requires right doctrine and has always included scripture

The Orthodox Church today uses the same Creed, adminsters the sacraments in the same manner, and professes the same beliefs as the Church before the schism. What more do you want? Rome has changed the Creed, changed the manner in which they administer the sacraments, and added doctrines to the faith of the Fathers.

Define “original” Christianity. The most authoratative expression of Christianity is the Nicene-Constantinopolian Creed. The practice of “original” Christianity were communion of both kinds and triple immersion baptism.

Again, you’re begging the question. The same charge can be leveled at Rome.

Congratulations. You are the first catholic I have known to admit that the Roman Catholic Church proclaims “new” doctrines “revealed” by the Holy Spirit to the pope of Rome. Your honesty has gained my respect however I can’t begin to explain my problems with that belief.

No, but St Paul said, “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!” Gal 1:8

Yes, but the revelation of God to the Church ended upon the death of the last Apostle. “Original Christianity” never taught that the Holy Spirit continues to “talk” to the pope of Rome and “reveal” “new” doctrines to him.

the revelation the catholics talk about is not adding to the Word of God. by revelation we mean that the Words of God in the Bible still being revealed to the True Church over the years.

 

[2ndGen]

the revelation the catholics talk about is not adding to the Word of God. by revelation we mean that the Words of God in the Bible still being revealed to the True Church over the years.

Wow. You said that so much simpler (and more effectively) than I did!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Is it not the Orthodoxy churches like the Anglican churches they all are under the power of the government in the country they are?

No. Some examples:

In preWWII Romania, the king was forced to abdicate because the patriarch excomunicated him over the royal mistress.

In WWII Bulgaria, the king and the Nazi led government were forced to not implement the Nurenberg laws, because the patriarch announced from the pulpit that he would excommunicate any official who complied. Another bishop had a nasty habit, when the SS would round up Jews, he would go to the concentration camp, waltz in among the prisoners in full vestments, and refuse to leave until they were released. Bulgaria ended up after WWII with more Jews than it started the war with.

The primate of the Czech church and other hierarchs were martyred for hiding the resistence to the Nazi government.

When the Albanian government tried to constitutional ban the Archbishop, it ended up with the Albanian church’s rights being affirmed by international agreement.

Patriarch Pavle of Serbia was the umbrella under which the opposition ot Milosevich congregated.

the patriarchate of Jerusalem refuses to recognize Tell Aviv’s choice in patriarch, and its rejection of the canonical patriarch.

The Ethiopian and Eretrian Churches followed the primates the governments have deposed.

When the Romanian parlament wanted to extend no fault divorce, Patriarch Teoctist stated only death or adultery ended a marriage. The legislation was withdrawn.

Google Athos and Greek government.

while the Roman Churche stand alone under the Power of Jesus alone?

Oh, please. If Catherine’s uncle wasn’t running Rome Henry could have had his annullment like anyone else, and we wouldn’t be here confronting silly statements.

The State? For centuries the pope of Rome was the State.

whose church is Jesus the head?

the One Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[Henry_Cornejo]

All organization exist with a visible leader in their midst. An army can go into battle with the president as its leader. However, the president remains at his desk. There must be a general who is visible to the soldiers.

Of course the president is still in command but the individual soldiers cannot claim to report to the president himself and obey the president as individual soldier. One can only claim that he is related to the commander in chief in spirit. I am not talking about our personal relationship with Jesus. Christianity has never been a democracy. It is a monarchy! We are all subject to the same benevolent, just, mercyful King. (though with Christ, we are no longer slaves)

The same holds true with the people of God: Jesus is the head of the Church and appointed Peter to head His Church. The Church is meant to stand beyond the lifetime of Peter, thus a successor is necessary. After Peter and the Apostles, The Church is not a majority rule and mostof all, will never be a laizzes fraire!

The Church on earth must have one head on earth. One person not one coalition. A body can never be lead by two heads.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You people can deny the primacy of Peter all you want it does not matter. if Jesus commanded Peter to lead his sheep, doesn’t that make him a leader? if you your boss for a while leaves the company your work for it and he tells you i want you to take care of things around here for me while i am gone. what you gonna do? did he not leave you in charge?

better than ex cathedra:

I Peter 5:1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. 2 Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly,

πρεσβυτερους τους εν υμιν παρακαλω ο συμπρεσβυτερος και μαρτυς των του χριστου παθηματων ο και της μελλουσης αποκαλυπτεσθαι δοξης κοινωνος
ποιμανατε το εν υμιν ποιμνιον του θεου επισκοπουντες μη αναγκαστως αλλ εκουσιως μηδε αισχροκερδως αλλα προθυμως

The term in boldface is the same in St. John. And it is plural.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Wow. So much “work” while I slept like a baby!

Like a baby. How a propos.

Funny thing is, most of the quotes you attributed to me are not my words!

No, you’re not very original, I have to admit.

“verbs?”

You do know what parts of speach are, no?

Where is the mention of The Apostles being given The Keys of The Kingdom of Heaven?

18:18. given your reading pope into any mention of father (again, do you do that with John 8:44?), I am assuming you can manage this.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but again the question was to whom did Peter say that He “would” give The Keys of The Kingdom of Heaven to “first”?

You’re wrong (again).

Correction: Peter didn’t say that He “would” give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to anyone.

How could you be so fluent in Greek (and I’m assuming that rest is Arabic or Aramaic),

Assuming? You were the one who suggested that we converse in Aramaic (it’s Syriac, btw).

yet have such a poor command of The English Language?

“The” is not capitalized in that sentence, nor is “language.”

Let me try this as if you’re in Kindergarten:

If that’s the only level you can function on.

To
who
did
Jesus
say
He
would
give
The
Keys
of
The
Kingdom
of
Heaven
to
first?

I never liked e e cummings.

Oh, wait, just in case you don’t understand what “first” means:

You must be doing dictionary exercises in English class.

I didn’t ask you whether or not Jesus appointed the other Apostles to positions of authorty in The Church (in fact, Catholic Doctrine relies on that).

The question is, who did Jesus choose/tell “first”?

First?

Why can’t you just answer the question as it is written?

yes, first, like: first you claimed that St. Peter refered to himself as pope in the NT literally, and that the word “pope” appears in the NT “hundreds” of times.

Wait, maybe this is simple enough for you…list these Chapters in their chronological order:

Matthew 15
Matthew 19
Matthew 17
Matthew 18
Matthew 16

From top to bottom, arrange them in the order that they appear in The Bible, the top reference being the “first” with the last refernce being the “last” of this particular list.

I’m not doing your math homework for you. Sorry.

Btw, the question is the chapters’ numeric order, not their chronological order.

:coffeeread:

I’d lay off the caffeine if I were you.

btw, are you old enough to drink it?

Other questions you did not answer:

Did Jesus give The Keys of The Kingdom of Heaven to Peter’s confession? A group of words? (which in reality weren’t Peter’s words, but God’s words revealed to Peter)

Already answered by the Fathers on another thread (I believe) you started.

Was Jesus calling Peter’s confession a person when He referred to them as “you” when He said “to you I will give The Keys of The Kingdom of Heaven”?

Ditto.

Do you believe that the sheep and lamb are the same group and if so, whey did Jesus separate them? (since you said that the lambs are the sheep)

You do understand that the sheep and lamb thing being the same completely put Peter in charge of The Apostles too if they are both one in the same and this clearly sets Peter apart from the lambs/sheep combination, right?

Aside from your rantings, you have offered no evidence that anyone before you identifyied the other Apostles as the lambs or the sheep.

New question?
When you say that you’re “under” a Patriarch, how is that since Orthodox Christians supposedly “don’t” beleive in having religious authorities over them?

yes, the ultramontanists can understand authority only as a dictatorship.

You offered your unidentified girlfriend and their unidentified “devout” relative as source of authority on Orthodoxy. I’m just verifying your sources (you’ll learn about that in freshman English composition).

I’ve cited my authority.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

one more question: who had a vision Jesus saying do not reject the unclean animals for I have made them clean. was it James? was it Andrew? was it John? wait a minute, could be Peter? oh uaw! why Peter?

And in Galatians 2:12, I guess he woke up.

I guess he was sleeping while the Lord spoke again (Mark 7:19, 14:37), and needed a reminder.

But his brother St. Andrew the First Called, and St. Phillip, didn’t (John 12:22)

one more question: who had written the decision for the Church saying do not reject the unclean animals for God has made them clean. was it Peter? was it Andrew? was it John? wait a minute, could be James? oh uaw! why James (Acts 15:19 [notice “I judge”], 21:25).

 

[2ndGen]

All organization exist with a visible leader in their midst. An army can go into battle with the president as its leader. However, the president remains at his desk. There must be a general who is visible to the soldiers.

Of course the president is still in command but the individual soldiers cannot claim to report to the president himself and obey the president as individual soldier. One can only claim that he is related to the commander in chief in spirit. I am not talking about our personal relationship with Jesus. Christianity has never been a democracy. It is a monarchy! We are all subject to the same benevolent, just, mercyful King. (though with Christ, we are no longer slaves)

The same holds true with the people of God: Jesus is the head of the Church and appointed Peter to head His Church. The Church is meant to stand beyond the lifetime of Peter, thus a successor is necessary. After Peter and the Apostles, The Church is not a majority rule and mostof all, will never be a laizzes fraire!

The Church on earth must have one head on earth. One person not one coalition. A body can never be lead by two heads.

Amen.

That’s why Matthias was chosen to replace Judas for the continuity of The Leadersthip of The Magistarium.

The President comparison, during every war, there is one General that is placed in charge of all the other Generals, Colonels, Majors, Captains, Liutenants, NCO, etc… and while Jesus is The President as appointed by God, The Papcy is The General, head of Jesus’ troops waging this war of good vs evil and truth vs falseness.

 

[2ndGen]

better than ex cathedra:

I Peter 5:1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. 2 Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly,

πρεσβυτερους τους εν υμιν παρακαλω ο συμπρεσβυτερος και μαρτυς των του χριστου παθηματων ο και της μελλουσης αποκαλυπτεσθαι δοξης κοινωνος
ποιμανατε το εν υμιν ποιμνιον του θεου επισκοπουντες μη αναγκαστως αλλ εκουσιως μηδε αισχροκερδως αλλα προθυμως

The term in boldface is the same in St. John. And it is plural.

LMCBO!

That’s Peter telling other Church leaders what to do!

The Pope has spoken!

 

[wisdomseeker]

And in Galatians 2:12, I guess he woke up.

I guess he was sleeping while the Lord spoke again (Mark 7:19, 14:37), and needed a reminder.

But his brother St. Andrew the First Called, and St. Phillip, didn’t (John 12:22)

one more question: who had written the decision for the Church saying do not reject the unclean animals for God has made them clean. was it Peter? was it Andrew? was it John? wait a minute, could be James? oh uaw! why James (Acts 15:19 [notice “I judge”], 21:25).

You mean Jesus also told James the same thing and James wrote down?

 

[wisdomseeker]

No. Some examples:

In preWWII Romania, the king was forced to abdicate because the patriarch excomunicated him over the royal mistress.

In WWII Bulgaria, the king and the Nazi led government were forced to not implement the Nurenberg laws, because the patriarch announced from the pulpit that he would excommunicate any official who complied. Another bishop had a nasty habit, when the SS would round up Jews, he would go to the concentration camp, waltz in among the prisoners in full vestments, and refuse to leave until they were released. Bulgaria ended up after WWII with more Jews than it started the war with.

The primate of the Czech church and other hierarchs were martyred for hiding the resistence to the Nazi government.

When the Albanian government tried to constitutional ban the Archbishop, it ended up with the Albanian church’s rights being affirmed by international agreement.

Patriarch Pavle of Serbia was the umbrella under which the opposition ot Milosevich congregated.

the patriarchate of Jerusalem refuses to recognize Tell Aviv’s choice in patriarch, and its rejection of the canonical patriarch.

The Ethiopian and Eretrian Churches followed the primates the governments have deposed.

When the Romanian parlament wanted to extend no fault divorce, Patriarch Teoctist stated only death or adultery ended a marriage. The legislation was withdrawn.

Google Athos and Greek government.

Oh, please. If Catherine’s uncle wasn’t running Rome Henry could have had his annullment like anyone else, and we wouldn’t be here confronting silly statements.

The State? For centuries the pope of Rome was the State.

the One Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church.

explain to me one thing, if before the schism there was One Church, One Body, One Faith. According to our fathers of this church all recognized the Roman Church to be the True church. Then the schism, your church separated from the Church of Rome. How is that your church became the True Church?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Here are all the times that Peter comes “first” among The Apostles:

(Just The Gospels alone!)

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).

Ah, cutting and pasting again with no glue, nor a clue. Watch out for sharp objects.

You don’t include “first to deny Christ in your list.” That alone acounts for over 30 of your 155, and in all 4 Gospels. The first (and actually the only) Apostle called Satan by Christ accounts for a couple more, and the first to fall asleep in Gethsemne (since you seem to call any mention of Peter a first), still more.

You also don’t look at St. Andrew the FIRST-Called, who of course, according to the Gospels brought St. Peter to Christ. (another first for St. Andrew:thumbsup: ).

I have time only for a few. Gotta leave for Vespers.

Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.

You cut your citation short. Why? In verse 30 Peter does indeed act as a rock.

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

And the first to deny the revelation.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

There’s no mention nor allusion to Jesus as the Head. btw, don’t mix your metaphors: bodies don’t have foundations or rocks (or at least the healthy bodies don’t).

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

He doesn’t receive them. It’s in the future tense. The present tense doesn’t come with the authority until where it is conferred on all the Apostles.

Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus’ tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ’s representative on earth.

When we grade essays, this is what we call “padding.” The two quotes are one, and your conclusions just repeat the same thing. Saying something that is wrong twice doesn’t make it true, just redundant, and a fallacy.

Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus’ teachings.

Or as the Satan calling shows, not understanding them.

Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.

Do a comparison: the boat was also Andrew’s, and he was first called (this is a list of firsts, no?).

Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples. Jesus also singles Peter out and judges his conduct vis-à-vis the conduct of the woman who anointed Him.

Fist to be rebuked again.

John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.

First in disobedience?

John 13:36; 21:18 - Jesus predicts Peter’s death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred.

And He predicts St. John will not be martyred, another first you missed.

And another missed first: he first tells John and his brother first that they will drink from the cup which will not pass (Mark 10:38-9, 14:36).

John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the “barque of Peter”) is a metaphor for the Church.

John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.

Or he jumped ship while the other Apostles brought in the catch. Exegete that. I noted your (or more probably, your source’s) hiatus.

John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus “more than these,” which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.

Jesus ASKS, He doesn’t STATE that Peter loves Him more. Nor is Peter the discile whom Christ loved.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

Yes, so you keep claiming but yet to start proving.

 

[2ndGen]

18:18. given your reading pope into any mention of father (again, do you do that with John 8:44?), I am assuming you can manage this.

 

[2ndGen]

I’m not doing your math homework for you. Sorry.

In other words, avoiding answering the question again.

Btw, the question is the chapters’ numeric order, not their chronological order.

No, chronological order…the order of “events”.

Which came first? Matthew 18 or Matthew 16?

Oh who am I kidding…you won’t answer.

I’d lay off the caffeine if I were you.

I need it to keep myself awake at your responses (or shall I say, lack of answers).

btw, are you old enough to drink it?

I don’t drink. Never have, never will.

Already answered by the Fathers on another thread (I believe) you started.

Never mind…I just found out why you guys don’t believe in The Catholic Pope…you guys went and created your own!

Aside from your rantings, you have offered no evidence that anyone before you identifyied the other Apostles as the lambs or the sheep.

I guess you’re not going to tell me how the sheep and the lambs could be the same then and if they were, why Jesus would use two different terms to define the same group.

Again, another question dodged. At least you consistent.

yes, the ultramontanists can understand authority only as a dictatorship.

You mean, like “your” pope?

You offered your unidentified girlfriend and their unidentified “devout” relative as source of authority on Orthodoxy. I’m just verifying your sources (you’ll learn about that in freshman English composition).

My Russian Girlfriend tells me that the Orthodox Church doesn’t recognize “Arab orthodox”.

Maybe that’s why they said you’re wrong.

Is this true?

I’ve cited my authority

Let me tell you where Orthodox get their teachings from:

Pope Shenouda III

There’s your “authority”.

Just by claiming to be an Arab Orthodox, you are acknowledging that he is the supreme authority over your bishops/Patriarchs/etc…and over you.

 

[jam070406]

Ah, cutting and pasting again with no glue, nor a clue. Watch out for sharp objects.

You don’t include “first to deny Christ in your list.” That alone acounts for over 30 of your 155, and in all 4 Gospels. The first (and actually the only) Apostle called Satan by Christ accounts for a couple more, and the first to fall asleep in Gethsemne (since you seem to call any mention of Peter a first), still more.

You also don’t look at St. Andrew the FIRST-Called, who of course, according to the Gospels brought St. Peter to Christ. (another first for St. Andrew:thumbsup: ).

I have time only for a few. Gotta leave for Vespers.

You cut your citation short. Why? In verse 30 Peter does indeed act as a rock.

And the first to deny the revelation.

There’s no mention nor allusion to Jesus as the Head. btw, don’t mix your metaphors: bodies don’t have foundations or rocks (or at least the healthy bodies don’t).

He doesn’t receive them. It’s in the future tense. The present tense doesn’t come with the authority until where it is conferred on all the Apostles.

When we grade essays, this is what we call “padding.” The two quotes are one, and your conclusions just repeat the same thing. Saying something that is wrong twice doesn’t make it true, just redundant, and a fallacy.

Or as the Satan calling shows, not understanding them.

Do a comparison: the boat was also Andrew’s, and he was first called (this is a list of firsts, no?).

Fist to be rebuked again.

First in disobedience?

And He predicts St. John will not be martyred, another first you missed.

And another missed first: he first tells John and his brother first that they will drink from the cup which will not pass (Mark 10:38-9, 14:36).

Or he jumped ship while the other Apostles brought in the catch. Exegete that. I noted your (or more probably, your source’s) hiatus.

Jesus ASKS, He doesn’t STATE that Peter loves Him more. Nor is Peter the discile whom Christ loved.

Yes, so you keep claiming but yet to start proving.

Wow, that was alot of effort to try and discredit the importance of Saint Peter.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

explain to me one thing, if before the schism there was One Church, One Body, One Faith. According to our fathers of this church all recognized the Roman Church to be the True church. Then the schism, your church separated from the Church of Rome. How is that your church became the True Church?

I can only be brief:

Our Fathers of this Church defeated Arianism at Nicea without Pope Sylvester, who took no part in the triumph over paganism.

Our Fathers of this Church wrote the Creed without Pope Damasus of Rome.

Our Fathers of this Church followed Pope Cyril, of Alexandria, in deposing Nestous.

Our Father of this Church accepted Pope Leo’s tome, but only after inspecting it for its Orthodoxy.

Our Fathers of this Church struck Pope Vigilius of Rome from the diptychs at the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

Our Fathers of this Church anathematized Pope Honorius of Rome.

Our Fathers of this Church laid down the sacred and ecumenical canons, that anathematized any who composed a different faith than the Creed’s.

Pope Leo III set up the original Creed in St. Peter’s at Rome, and St. Paul’s outside the Walls, with the inscription that he had done so for “love of the Orthodox Faith.”

Pope Leo IX of Rome insisted in interpolating the pure Creed, and insisted that we do the same.

We refused, and remained the True Church.

Pope Leo’s legates excommunicated us, but as the Fathers state “the curses of heretics are blessings,” and succeeded in only separating themselves from us, the Church of the Fathers.