Where did YOU get your authority?

[NonCatholic]

Because Jesus gave Peter the keys, not Paul.
We all have the keys in the context this is written…I have the keys. All believers do. Don’t you?

Peter was still free. If you read Peter’s letters, he speaks of being in Babylon, which is understood to be Rome. Peter did not have the protection of being a Roman citizen like Paul did. Being a Christian, and the leader of the movement, was a death sentence. Had Paul mentioned him by name, it would have brought Rome down on Peter. It is the same as the leaders of an underground resistance movement. Basic history. Being in someplace and starting a church is 2 different things…Scripture only relates that Paul was sent to the gentiles (Romans for example) and Peter to the Jews…maybe for the reason you gave concerning Roman citizenship)

Rome was a stop off point for Paul. **Where is that in Scripture?**He wanted to go on to Spain. The letter to the Romans was written PRIOR to his trip to Rome toa Church already there. You joking right?

I doubt it. Elder is bishop. Read Father Mitch Paqua’s book on Paul to understand why “priest” **Scripture tells us exactly who the saints and priests are…doesn’t it?**is not used by them.

Elder and Bishop can be used interchangeably, but not Bishop in the RCC context.

 

[NonCatholic]

Let’s be more direct here:

Which of the two are you trying to point out:

1. “church” …means it’s going to be anything but RC?

or

1. “church” … means it’s going to be non-Catholic?

Means it is not specifically mentioned by name, (although there are several references to this type of church) the the very same argument the RCC uses to dismiss the salvation comes from grace through faith in Christ alone is used to validate the RCC…meaning the RCC is implicit but not stated.

 

[NonCatholic]

I will ask again: in Revelation, whose name was on the foundation of the new jerusalem?

Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them {were} the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Since no one was answering; I did…hope that is okay.

 

[ralphinal]

• or - (20 years)

Correct. Now, does the NT contain everything that Jesus said or did?

Elder and Bishop can be used interchangeably, but not Bishop in the RCC context.

Why not?

Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them {were} the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Since no one was answering; I did…hope that is okay.

That is more than ok. What does it mean that the New Jerusalem has as its foundation the 12 Apostles of the Lamb?

 

[ralphinal]

AS to the keys, Jesus handed them to Peter, then to the 12 in a different form.

First, he gave Peter the authority to bind and loose. THen, he gave the 12 the authority to forgive sins. He gave his Church the authority that he had on earth. Not all believers have the same authority.

 

[ziapueblo]

We all have the keys in the context this is written…I have the keys. All believers do. Don’t you?

Please explain?

Where is that in Scripture?

Romans 15:24, “I hope to see you in passing as I go to Spain and to be sent on my way there by you, after I have enjoyed being with you for a time.”

Romans 15:28, “So when I have completed this and safely handed over this contribution to them, I shall set out by way of you to Spain;”

Yes, St. Paul was on his way to Spain!

You joking right?

St. Paul had not yet been to Rome, yet a journey had long been on his mind (Romans 1:9-19; 15:23).

The Christian community in Rome was likely within the sizable Jewish population at Rome.

God bless,
ZP

St. Paul

 

[Stephen168]

No to be rude or anything…that’s not my intention. There is the RC Apostolic Authority and the RCC version of the church Christ started…not to be confused with with the Apostles teaching concerning Christ in the Bible and the church that Christ said “I will build my church”…somewhere He left out the RC, but ahhh who cares what Scripture teaches and who is able to understand the things of God?

Historically, how does this change anything?
Some history

 

[NonCatholic]

ralphinal:

Originally Posted by NonCatholic View Post

• or - (20 years)
  Correct. Now, does the NT contain everything that Jesus said or did? Does it tell us enough?

Originally Posted by NonCatholic View Post
Elder and Bishop can be used interchangeably, but not Bishop in the RCC context.
Why not? Very few if any similarities in function…the NT elders were the “feeders of the flock and overseer” of each congregation, primary function is teach the Word of God, not part of the hierarchical structure like the RCC.

Originally Posted by NonCatholic View Post
Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them {were} the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Since no one was answering; I did…hope that is okay.
That is more than ok. What does it mean that the New Jerusalem has as its foundation the 12 Apostles of the Lamb? What does it mean that the 12 gates have the names of the tribes of Israel?
Each of the 12 preached the confession that Peter, the foundational truth of Christianity, made in Matt 16. Why isn’t it just one fundation of Peter?

---

Everyone else had a signature, so I thought I needed one too.

Ralph

 

[ralphinal]

Originally Posted by NonCatholic View Post

• or - (20 years)
  Does it tell us enough?

That is not the question. Yes, it tells us enough. Does it tell us EVERYTHING?

Originally Posted by NonCatholic View Post
Elder and Bishop can be used interchangeably, but not Bishop in the RCC context.
Why not? Very few if any similarities in function…the NT elders were the “feeders of the flock and overseer” of each congregation, primary function is teach the Word of God, not part of the hierarchical structure like the RCC.

So, are you saying that the Apostles did not have oversight over all the other Churches? Are you saying that they could not make binding doctrine over all of CHristianity?

Originally Posted by NonCatholic View Post
Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them {were} the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Since no one was answering; I did…hope that is okay.
That is more than ok. What does it mean that the New Jerusalem has as its foundation the 12 Apostles of the Lamb? What does it mean that the 12 gates have the names of the tribes of Israel?
Each of the 12 preached the confession that Peter, the foundational truth of Christianity, made in Matt 16. Why isn’t it just one fundation of Peter?

---

The Church is Apostolic, that is founded upon a system of Bishops AND teaching that which the Apostles taught. Peter is shown to be the leader of that bunch.

 

[ziapueblo]

The Church is Apostolic, that is founded upon a system of Bishops AND teaching that which the Apostles taught. Peter is shown to be the leader of that bunch.

Ephesians 2:19-20, “So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone.”

 

[Chancellare]

Means it is not specifically mentioned by name, (although there are several references to this type of church) the the very same argument the RCC uses to dismiss the salvation comes from grace through faith in Christ alone is used to validate the RCC…meaning the RCC is implicit but not stated.

Where in the Bible did you find the rule that any name not stated there is not valid?

On the other hand, I will still gladly accept the name Catholic since it was the only name used to describe the church during the early church fathers’ times.
Your objection only refers the written form. But the phrase Catholic Church first appeared in written form in a letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch. In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans written in 107 AD he said: “Wherever the bishop is, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” This statement is interesting for several reasons. One reason is that the name “Catholic” used to designate Jesus’ Church was apparently not something new. And most likely it has already been used earlier than that orally. St. Ignatius felt no need to explain or defend the name. This points to an earlier year for the beginning of the name Catholic. This establishes clearly that the name “Catholic” was used in the first century. Another reason that this statement is interesting is that the man that first wrote that the Church was called “Catholic” was from Antioch. It was also in Antioch that the followers of Jesus were first called “Christians” (see Acts 11:26). One other reason that this statement from St. Ignatius is interesting is that Jesus and the Catholic Church are united as one. “Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” In other words, Jesus is always found with the Catholic Church. This fulfills the words of our Lord, “Behold, I am with you always even until the end of the world!” (Matthew 28:20).

What about your church: when was its name first used?

 

[NonCatholic]

Originally Posted by NonCatholic View Post

• or - (20 years)
  Does it tell us enough?
  That is not the question. Yes, it tells us enough. Does it tell us EVERYTHING? Enough is enough is it not?
  Quote:
  Originally Posted by NonCatholic View Post
  Elder and Bishop can be used interchangeably, but not Bishop in the RCC context.
  Why not? Very few if any similarities in function…the NT elders were the “feeders of the flock and overseer” of each congregation, primary function is teach the Word of God, not part of the hierarchical structure like the RCC.
  So, are you saying that the Apostles did not have oversight over all the other Churches? They appointed other elders or overseers-part of the building plan Christ laid out., so no. Are you saying that they could not make binding doctrine over all of CHristianity? No they could not make up doctrine…that was part of the error that Paul, Peter, Mark, Luke, Jude and John warned against…it would be a different gospel. they could only teach that which God gave them via Jesus in the beginning, then the Holy Spirit.
  Quote:
  Originally Posted by NonCatholic View Post
  Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them {were} the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Since no one was answering; I did…hope that is okay.
That is more than ok. What does it mean that the New Jerusalem has as its foundation the 12 Apostles of the Lamb? What does it mean that the 12 gates have the names of the tribes of Israel?
Each of the 12 preached the confession that Peter, the foundational truth of Christianity, made in Matt 16. Why isn’t it just one foundation of Peter?

---

The Church is Apostolic, that is founded upon a system of Bishops AND teaching that which the Apostles taught. Peter is shown to be the leader of that bunch. I thought Christ was the leader of the bunch.

---

Everyone else had a signature, so I thought I needed one too.

Ralph
Reply With Quote

 

[NonCatholic]

Where in the Bible did you find the rule that any name not stated there is not valid? **Where did I say that?
**
On the other hand, I will still gladly accept the name Catholic since it was the only name used to describe the church during the early church fathers’ times. Catholic, with a little “c” - that I might be able to show through Scripture, but not the “C”.
Your objection only refers the written form. But the phrase Catholic Church first appeared in written form in a letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch. In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans written in 107 AD he said: “Wherever the bishop is, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” This statement is interesting for several reasons. One reason is that the name “Catholic” used to designate Jesus’ Church was apparently not something new. And most likely it has already been used earlier than that orally. St. Ignatius felt no need to explain or defend the name. This points to an earlier year for the beginning of the name Catholic. This establishes clearly that the name “Catholic” was used in the first century. Another reason that this statement is interesting is that the man that first wrote that the Church was called “Catholic” was from Antioch. It was also in Antioch that the followers of Jesus were first called “Christians” (see Acts 11:26). One other reason that this statement from St. Ignatius is interesting is that Jesus and the Catholic Church are united as one. “Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” In other words, Jesus is always found with the Catholic Church. This fulfills the words of our Lord, “Behold, I am with you always even until the end of the world!” (Matthew 28:20).

What about your church: when was its name first used?

Now that you mention that…I guess since the word Baptism came into being in the NT…so I guess before 33AD. But since I am a Christian first, the church I belong to started at the day of Pentecost.

 

[LilyM]

NC, when it comes to knowledge of Christ and His truth, there is no such thing as enough, really.

Even on a practical level, your comparison is like saying ‘just enough food to keep me alive’ is the same thing as ‘enough food to eat to utter and complete fullness and more’.

We are here to know the FULLNESS of truth, as Christ promised to His apostles. Why should we be satisfied with the bare bones minimum the Bible provides, when we have the opportunity, through Christ’s teachings as passed on by the Church, of so much more?

 

[NonCatholic]

NC, when it comes to knowledge of Christ and His truth, there is no such thing as enough, really. No one will get filled until they are in Heaven. You need to review the original question to see that the answer was more than satisfactory. Really!

Even on a practical level, your comparison is like saying ‘just enough food to keep me alive’ is the same thing as ‘enough food to eat to utter and complete fullness and more’.

We are here to know the FULLNESS of truth, as Christ promised to His apostles. Why should we be satisfied with the bare bones minimum the Bible provides, when we have the opportunity, through Christ’s teachings as passed on by the Church, of so much more?

“Why should we be satisfied with the bare bones minimum the Bible provides” You insult the author of Scripture with that statement. You can spend a lifetime in “studying” the Scripture and never be filled because of the richness. Most, but not all of the time, this type of statement comes from a very superficial knowledge and study of the Bible.

 

[LilyM]

“Why should we be satisfied with the bare bones minimum the Bible provides” You insult the author of Scripture with that statement. You can spend a lifetime in “studying” the Scripture and never be filled because of the richness. Most, but not all of the time, this type of statement comes from a very superficial knowledge and study of the Bible.

You do realise, don’t you, that you’ve just with this statement condemned all the illiterate Christians over the centuries (in other words the majority) to eternal second-class status religiously speaking?

The Bible and its study is NOT, however worthwhile and important and whatever riches it provides, the be-all and end-all of our faith. It is merely the beginning. And it is only ONE of the three important pillars of faith. Paul, in his letter to Timothy, calls the Church, not the Bible, the pillar and bulwark of truth, so he concurs.

In terms of written material, as John said the world could not contain the books that would be necessary - how can the Bible, whatever it contains, possibly be anything other than bare bones given this statement?

It is those who treat it, as you seem to, as an end (or nearly and end) in itself, who have the superficial belief - the belief that a series of black or red squiggles on a paper constitute a complete or nearly complete basis for knowing God.

 

[NDfan]

Christ WAS the speaker, He wasn’t the object closest to the speaker unless there were two of Him and His clone was standing right next to Himself.

Lily this demonstrates you’re not paying attention to the Greek. Using this type of pronoun would signify that Christ was referring to himself. Most likely given the way the sentence is structured Christ probably pointed to Peter when saying thou art Peter and then gestured to HIMSELF when saying and on this rock I will build my church. The Greek here means this here rather than that which was previously referenced. So you are Peter and on this (here) Rock pointing to HIMSELF I will build my church.

Why wouldn’t He have simply said ‘I will build my church upon myself’ if that was what He meant (as He did at other points in scripture) and save everyone the resulting confusion?

HE did say this. Again you are not paying attention to the Greek. If Christ wanted to signify that the church was built on Petros then HE would have said on thee Petros I will build my church. This is the type of argument papal apologists try to make when referring to the Aramaic Christ may have spoke. Referring to the use of the word Kephas of course.

The logic is that Christ would have said you are Kephas and on this Kephas I will build my church. However this makes no sense because Kephas was used as Simon’s name. So it doesn’t make sense for Christ to say on this Kephas referring to the name. It would say on thee Kephas. To move this into the Greek the same applies. For Matthew to make it clear that Christ was referring to Petros he would have needed to say on thee Petros. HE simply doesn’t. He uses petra to refer to HIMSELF. This makes sense when considering the initial question Christ asks of HIS Apostles. That of who do you say that I am. Peter gives the right answer to which Christ responds HE will build a church. Peter the person cannot be what the church is built on.

And why oh why did He change SIMON’S name at that exact point, unless to clarify that the statement was about Simon? Of course a church can be built on a person - we are ALL, each and every one of us, living stones upon which the church is built, as scripture says, no?

Incorrect. Christ does not rename Simon at this exact moment.
Obviously you’re not paying attention to scripture when we both know he renames him much much earlier. Matthew tells us right in chapter 4 simon (who is called peter). So obviously simon was called peter way before this.

And no the church cannot be built on a person. The apostles and the prophets are the foundation with all Christians as living stones getting built up into a spiritual household. But the church is built on Christ. That’s why we are Christians and not Kephans. Christ saves us not Peter. The church doesn’t exist without Christ. Therefore the church cannot be built on a singular human being.

 

[NDfan]

Your Greek argument against Peter does not hold water, for one Jesus spoke Aramaic and renamed Simon “Cephas” which has no other meaning than “Rock”. The Greek translators used the masquiline noun “Petros” for translating purposes because every Christian up to the Greek translation understood Peter to be the leader of the apostles, named personally by Jesus, check the book of Acts, Paul records calling Peter, Cephas the Aramaic name for Rock.

Sorry Gabriel but your argument holds no water. Aramaic may have been what Christ spoke but the Gospels are written in Greek. If Matthew wanted to tell us the church was built on Peter then he would have said on thee Petros. He simply doesn’t do this. Study the Greek more and you will understand. Speculating on what the Aramaic may have said is just that. Pure speculation. The fact remains we have no manuscript of Matthew or any Gospel in Aramaic.

As far as the first 300 years of Catholic Christian persecution, the Pope “Peter” was always sought after to end the spread of Christianity.

That’s ridiculous. All Christians were persecuted as well as all church leaders. Killing the Bishop of Rome would not have stopped the spread of Christianity. Where do you get this rubbish

Before going into word gymnastics, try reading apostolic history, you only find the Catholic church existing.

Try reading? I can assure my education is quite sufficient. Talk about word gymnastics. You have to twist and bend scripture to justify your position. Try reading scripture from the original Greek and let if flow the way it should. Not connecting this verse and that verse like connect the dots to make your final picture look real.

Its been 2000 years since the resurrection; Peter the Rock Jesus built his church, and gave his authority to Peter to excercise on earth until he returns finding Peter the Pope doing so.

Not sure what you are saying here. No disrespect Gabriel but I’ve read many of your posts and your theology is lacking just a little.

PEACE

 

[NDfan]

Is there another historical claim?

What do you mean historical claim?

Historically, how does this change anything?
Some history

From the perspective of the Pope being a great spiritual leader nothing. No disrespect but don’t throw a link at me.

There’s a huge difference between being a great spiritual leader and claiming the center of Christianity revolves around one Bishop who is infallible.

 

[NDfan]

I will ask again: in Revelation, whose name was on the foundation of the new jerusalem?

Ralph can I ask for a clarification?