Who founded your denomination?????

[Aris]

I agree

Heck, if somebody started giving me that list, I’d be thinking of concrete evidence from the Bible and from History why it isn’t so. If I can’t then the conclusion must be that it is true.

 

[Imprimartin]

Well. I feel like this is uncomfortable silence. What do we do now? Should I dance? :dancing:

I think that the “who founded your denomination” question to ultimately result in the same discussion. Don’t you think?

Martin

 

[RBushlow]

Imprimartin:

Well. I feel like this is uncomfortable silence. What do we do now? Should I dance? I think that the “who founded your denomination” question to ultimately result in the same discussion. Don’t you think?

I think you’ve given enough evidence to convince any one who is open to the truth. Remember, it is only by the Grace of God that any of us can see. When the Grace is given to someone they will see, until then they will remain blinded by their own forgone conclusions. In other words, someone will not hear what you say if they’ve already concluded that whatever you say is wrong.

Yours in Christ

 

[rod_of_iron]

Imprimartin:

Yes, what I’m asking you to do is quite difficult if not impossible. I hate to say this but, “That’s your problem.”

My problem? You have made a claim, yet you refuse to prove it is true. Instead, you attempt to compel me to disprove it. But the default is that your claims are already not true unless you prove them. You have the burden and responsibility to prove what you say is true. Why won’t you prove it? It would appear that you cannot prove it, even though you claim it would be so much easier to do so. I can’t hold my breath forever, waiting for you to prove your claims. I have no problem. If you are unable or unwilling to prove your claims are true, then I must accept the default, which is that these claims of yours are not true.

Imprimartin:

I have showed you couple of incidences where Peter is “special”. And I gave you a laundry list of events where Peter is special (which I haven’t spelled out to you yet.)

You have failed to show me how any of the items on your list suggests primacy. Spell out your evidence. I implore you.

Imprimartin:

But since I’ve started spelling out the few events that I have spelled out, all you have given me is alternate interpretations of those events. It only follows that that will be your tactic for all thirty.

I don’t feel that I have really given you alternate interpretations, because I do not believe that your interpretations are plausible. For me to give an alternate interpretation to something, it has to be alternate to something plausible.

Imprimartin:

On the primacy issue, we take opposite sides. I have a bunch of factors (which I haven’t shown yet) that will slowly eat away at your collective conclusion.

You are absolutely right that you have not shown these factors yet! After your song and dance around your claims, I am beginning to doubt that you ever will show them.

Imprimartin:

If you want, we can tackle each issue (as you have requested) one at time. But know this: I will have a plausible interpretation for each and every one and you will have a “that’s not neccessarily true. It’s just a coincidence.” response for each and every one. I know this. I’ve seen your other posts on the single issues. But in the end, my collective weight will show the “they’re ALL just coincidences” argument to be improbable. It is more probable that “Peter is the president”.

I don’t ever recall saying that any of the items on your list is a coincidence. That is your word. Before I could ever say that any of those thirty items is a coincidence, you first must show that any of those items suggests only a person with primacy could do it. I am still waiting for you to show how any of the items you listed suggests primacy. Unless you do so, this discussion will come no closer to you proving your claims, and the discussion will be fruitless.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Martin,

When you speak of primacy, what do you really mean? Is primacy equal to leadership? Or is there more to primacy than that? When you say that Peter had primacy, what does that really mean? Has anyone else in history had this primacy?

 

[RBushlow]

rod of iron:

When you speak of primacy, what do you really mean? Is primacy equal to leadership? Or is there more to primacy than that? When you say that Peter had primacy, what does that really mean? Has anyone else in history had this primacy?

“Thou are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church and I will give you the Keys of the Kingdom”. The plain meaning of this is quite clear to any one who seeks to understand. I think we’ve given enough evidence to convince any one who is open to the truth. It is only by the Grace of God that any of us can see. When the Grace is given to someone they will see, until then they will remain blinded by their own forgone conclusions. In other words, someone will not hear what we say if they’ve already concluded that whatever we say is wrong, no matter how convincing.

Yours in Christ

 

[Imprimartin]

Rod:

Martin,
When you speak of primacy, what do you really mean? Is primacy equal to leadership? Or is there more to primacy than that? When you say that Peter had primacy, what does that really mean? Has anyone else in history had this primacy?

“Thou are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church and I will give you the Keys of the Kingdom”. The plain meaning of this is quite clear to any one who seeks to understand. I think we’ve given enough evidence to convince any one who is open to the truth. It is only by the Grace of God that any of us can see. When the Grace is given to someone they will see, until then they will remain blinded by their own forgone conclusions. In other words, someone will not hear what we say if they’ve already concluded that whatever we say is wrong, no matter how convincing.

Yours in Christ

Rod, Perhaps maybe our disconnect has something to with how we have defined primacy (or maybe not ) Hopefully I get this defintion right.

Primacy means basically that among many leaders, one person is leader of the rest when the the other leaders need a leader. It’s like a “leader on the fly”. If there is argument among the other leaders, the primate settles the dispute. He can function as a tie-breaker or he can tell the others to implement things. But that doesn’t mean the other leaders aren’t leaders. In fact, those other leaders are truly boss of their “ship” (as it were). They don’t need a primate if everything is running smoothly. Unfortunately, since people are human, primates have to step in sometimes. Since the other leaders have access to the primate, they can request him to settle disputes (which has happened often in history) and the other leaders are happy about it (but sometimes not). If you think about it, if there were such a thing as god-given primate, it would make things easier.

Also note: In order for primates (in general) to be truly effective in certain situations, he would have to have some god-given gifts like infalliblity and stuff like that. but that is a conversation for another day. Primates can’t really do their jobs unless they have gifts like that. Any smart person (like God) would recognize that having a group of leaders without some kind of tie-breaker would lead to deadlocks and other problems, etc…

Now, here are some things a primate is not:
-sinless
-perfect
-infallible in all matters

Anyone else want to chime in? Did I miss anything?

Martin

PS regarding RBushlow’s quote above, remember that statement is spoken by a schooled jew to jewish hearers in a jewish culture. You can’t think like an american when interpreting that verse and the verse that Jesus is alluding to (Isa 22:14-24).

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Imprimartin:

regarding RBushlow’s quote above, remember that statement is spoken by a schooled jew to jewish hearers in a jewish culture. You can’t think like an american when interpreting that verse and the verse that Jesus is alluding to (Isa 22:14-24).

That is SUCH an important thing to keep in mind. Thanks for reminding us!!

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[rod_of_iron]

RBushlow:

“Thou are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church and I will give you the Keys of the Kingdom”. The plain meaning of this is quite clear to any one who seeks to understand.

The meaning is only plain to someone who has already been taught to be Catholic. For someone who was not raised and indoctrinated Catholic, the interpretation that the Catholic church has accepted is not so easily acceptable by non-Catholics. When you take this verse out of context like you did above, you will most likely get the wrong interpretation.

Why would Jesus ask who people said that He was if who Peter was was much more important? The Catholic intepretation of that verse puts Peter ahead of Christ in importance.

RBushlow:

I think we’ve given enough evidence to convince any one who is open to the truth.

You have perhaps given enough evidence to convince a Catholic, but not a non-Catholic.

RBushlow:

It is only by the Grace of God that any of us can see. When the Grace is given to someone they will see, until then they will remain blinded by their own forgone conclusions. In other words, someone will not hear what we say if they’ve already concluded that whatever we say is wrong, no matter how convincing.

Well, you are already convinced that I am wrong, so you will not consider what I am telling you either. The sword cuts both ways.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

rod of iron:

The meaning is only plain to someone who has already been taught to be Catholic. For someone who was not raised and indoctrinated Catholic, the interpretation that the Catholic church has accepted is not so easily acceptable by non-Catholics. When you take this verse out of context like you did above, you will most likely get the wrong interpretation.

Who is it who is deciding what the correct context of a verse is and which interpretations are right or wrong?

Why would Jesus ask who people said that He was if who Peter was was much more important? The Catholic intepretation of that verse puts Peter ahead of Christ in importance.

Jesus was demonstrating the special way that God would work through Peter as the leader of the church, the uphold, protector and defender of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). A way that He didn’t work through anyone else. The Catholic interpretation in no way puts Peter ahead of Christ in importance. I’m interested to hear your comments on how you feel the Catholic interpretation does, in fact, make Peter more important the Jesus.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[montanaman]

The meaning is only plain to someone who has already been taught to be Catholic. For someone who was not raised and indoctrinated Catholic, the interpretation that the Catholic church has accepted is not so easily acceptable by non-Catholics. When you take this verse out of context like you did above, you will most likely get the wrong interpretation.

Why would Jesus ask who people said that He was if who Peter was was much more important? The Catholic intepretation of that verse puts Peter ahead of Christ in importance.

Actually, it was plain to the Apostles, and to everyone else for centuries. Any other interpretation is very new, or a deliberate misinterpretation to serve obstinant ends.

And if you still believe we put Peter ahead of Christ, you haven’t been paying attention to anything on this board. I won’t bother to speculate about the reasons why.

 

[RBushlow]

rod of iron:

The meaning is only plain . . . .

Then I will pray, as I always do, for guidance and wisdom from the Holy Spirit, and I will pray for the same thing for you. “Seek and you shall find.”

Yours in Christ

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

Rod of Iron (whatever that means, hey maybe I should start a thread asking people for a “protestant” interpretation and a “Catholic” interpretation of what “rod of iron” means lol), even though I haven’t been in the conversation for a long time, I’ve been looking at the past posts of you and other people in this thread and I have to say, that they have done nothing less than prove with rock-solid evidence that Peter had primacy. Your rebuttals however, weren’t proof, or anything close to it at all, but just simple refusals to believe the proof they put before you over and over and over and over again. That was the topic of just about every single post of yours, simple refusal to believe it, although all the proof in the world is there. I bet if we told you that if you stuck your head in a toilet and gave yourself a swirly that you would stink, you still wouldn’t believe us, even if we all came to your house a gave Catholic4aReasn a swirly in front of you and showed you the results to prove it to you, (no offense Nancy, love ya )

 

[rod_of_iron]

Corpus Cristi:

Rod of Iron (whatever that means, hey maybe I should start a thread asking people for a “protestant” interpretation and a “Catholic” interpretation of what “rod of iron” means lol), even though I haven’t been in the conversation for a long time, I’ve been looking at the past posts of you and other people in this thread and I have to say, that they have done nothing less than prove with rock-solid evidence that Peter had primacy. Your rebuttals however, weren’t proof, or anything close to it at all, but just simple refusals to believe the proof they put before you over and over and over and over again. That was the topic of just about every single post of yours, simple refusal to believe it, although all the proof in the world is there.

What proof??? When I asked for proof, I was given 30 events that occurred in Peter’s life that you Catholics believe proves that Peter had primacy. But when I ask any of you how any of those events prove primacy, none of you show me how they do. I am still waiting for Martin to show me how walking on water proves primacy; or how having someone (Jesus or someone else) pay your taxes for you proves primacy.

Repeatedly telling me that Peter had primacy does not prove that he did have it. Give me documented cases of people other than Peter who had primacy. Show me if any of these other people who had primacy, also experienced the same 30 events that Peter did.

What I really want any of you (especially Martin) to do is take each of those 30 events, prove that each event could not happen to anyone unless they had primacy, and then show me when each of the events occurred in the life of each person who had primacy during their lifetime.

Of course, you do not have to give me an exhaustive list. I would probably be happy if you could show me one or two other people that allegedly had primacy, who experienced all 30 events that you show Peter experienced. If these 30 events prove primacy, then anyone else who had primacy would have had these 30 events happen to them also. Otherwise, they would not have primacy, right? Show me any pope other than Peter in whose life those 30 events can also be found. If no one else can be found who experienced these 30 things, then either Peter did not have primacy, or he took it to the grave with him. A third option, which is more likely, is that these 30 events, separately or grouped together, do not prove primacy.

 

[montanaman]

Rod,

This is why I think you’re here for anything but a desire for truth. Nobody has said that any ONE of those things proves primacy. We’ve all said that taken together, they show that he has primacy. Somehow, though, you take that curious Biblical fact–that Peter is mentioned prominently 30 times–and dismiss it as irrelevent.

We’re not saying it proves the papacy, but it can’t be ignored. Like someone else has said, though, you merely ignore logic and proof. You refuse to concede even the simplest things. It’s as though human logic and reason don’t compute with you. But I don’t think you have an intellectual failing. I think it’s pride.

 

[Aris]

I’d like to quote a previous post.

“We can only sow the seeds.”

Unbelief will always be there. It is up to the person with God’s help to accept the Truth.

It has been shown that

1. Peter was the leader of the Apostles
2. Christ gave special instruction to Peter alone.

Both of which point to Peter’s primacy.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

rod of iron:

What proof??? When I asked for proof, I was given 30 events that occurred in Peter’s life that you Catholics believe proves that Peter had primacy. But when I ask any of you how any of those events prove primacy, none of you show me how they do. I am still waiting for Martin to show me how walking on water proves primacy; or how having someone (Jesus or someone else) pay your taxes for you proves primacy.

Repeatedly telling me that Peter had primacy does not prove that he did have it. Give me documented cases of people other than Peter who had primacy. Show me if any of these other people who had primacy, also experienced the same 30 events that Peter did.

What I really want any of you (especially Martin) to do is take each of those 30 events, prove that each event could not happen to anyone unless they had primacy, and then show me when each of the events occurred in the life of each person who had primacy during their lifetime.

Of course, you do not have to give me an exhaustive list. I would probably be happy if you could show me one or two other people that allegedly had primacy, who experienced all 30 events that you show Peter experienced. If these 30 events prove primacy, then anyone else who had primacy would have had these 30 events happen to them also. Otherwise, they would not have primacy, right? Show me any pope other than Peter in whose life those 30 events can also be found. If no one else can be found who experienced these 30 things, then either Peter did not have primacy, or he took it to the grave with him. A third option, which is more likely, is that these 30 events, separately or grouped together, do not prove primacy.

Look, even if we took you to the vatican, told you the history of the digs and what people found there, and then showed you what was proven to be St. Peter’s body under the main altar in St. Peter’s basilica, and showed you the ancient markings that told where St. Peter was buried, one ancient marking saying that said the Peter prayed for those buried near his body, you wouldn’t believe us. You’re just non-believing, and you need to let God open your eyes to the truth in front of you that you don’t need to even go half-way round the world to Rome for. And even if YOU don’t consider anything they gave proof, YOU didn’t give any PROOF, meaning verifiable FACT, not OPINION FORMULATED IN YOUR MIND AS YOU READ THE POST to support your point of why Peter had no primacy. You STILL continue to give NO PROOF, at least they DID give you proof, according to you though, they TRIED, which is more than they could say for you.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

rod of iron:

What proof??? When I asked for proof, I was given 30 events that occurred in Peter’s life that you Catholics believe proves that Peter had primacy. But when I ask any of you how any of those events prove primacy, none of you show me how they do. I am still waiting for Martin to show me how walking on water proves primacy; or how having someone (Jesus or someone else) pay your taxes for you proves primacy.

Repeatedly telling me that Peter had primacy does not prove that he did have it. Give me documented cases of people other than Peter who had primacy. Show me if any of these other people who had primacy, also experienced the same 30 events that Peter did.

What I really want any of you (especially Martin) to do is take each of those 30 events, prove that each event could not happen to anyone unless they had primacy, and then show me when each of the events occurred in the life of each person who had primacy during their lifetime.

Of course, you do not have to give me an exhaustive list. I would probably be happy if you could show me one or two other people that allegedly had primacy, who experienced all 30 events that you show Peter experienced. If these 30 events prove primacy, then anyone else who had primacy would have had these 30 events happen to them also. Otherwise, they would not have primacy, right? Show me any pope other than Peter in whose life those 30 events can also be found. If no one else can be found who experienced these 30 things, then either Peter did not have primacy, or he took it to the grave with him. A third option, which is more likely, is that these 30 events, separately or grouped together, do not prove primacy.

Maybe I’m being overly simplistic, but wouldn’t compiling this list be impossible since these things ONLY happened to Peter? If my thinking is off help me out.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[rod_of_iron]

Catholic4aReasn:

Maybe I’m being overly simplistic, but wouldn’t compiling this list be impossible since these things ONLY happened to Peter? If my thinking is off help me out.

In Christ,
Nancy

Are you then implying that Peter was the only one in the history of the world to have something called primacy? Martin claimed that all 30 things together on his list proves that Peter had primacy. If no one else had all these 30 things happen to them, this would suggest that no one else but Peter ever had primacy. When Peter died, this primacy would have been buried with him.

I have been accused of abandoning logic. On the contrary, I am trying to be very logical. If Peter needed these 30 things to show primacy, then anyone else who claims to have primacy would need these 30 things also. That is indeed logical.

But we must first ascertain if all 30 of these things lead us to proving primacy if they are all grouped together. This is why I tried to discuss each one separately. But no one will discuss this logically with me. Perhaps, none of you know how to be logical.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Corpus Cristi:

Look, even if we took you to the vatican, told you the history of the digs and what people found there, and then showed you what was proven to be St. Peter’s body under the main altar in St. Peter’s basilica, and showed you the ancient markings that told where St. Peter was buried, one ancient marking saying that said the Peter prayed for those buried near his body, you wouldn’t believe us.

How would any of those activities help prove that Peter had primacy? If a body under the Vatican can be proven to be the body of Peter, then this would only prove that Peter was in Rome when he died. This would not prove that he had primacy.
Corpus Cristi:

You’re just non-believing,

Not so. I am a true believer in the true God. Jesus Christ is my Savior. You would have been accurate if you would have said that I am non-Catholic. That much is true.
Corpus Cristi:

and you need to let God open your eyes to the truth in front of you that you don’t need to even go half-way round the world to Rome for.

Why would I go to Rome if you cannot even explain how the things that Martin listed help prove that Peter had primacy?
Corpus Cristi:

And even if YOU don’t consider anything they gave proof, YOU didn’t give any PROOF, meaning verifiable FACT, not OPINION FORMULATED IN YOUR MIND AS YOU READ THE POST to support your point of why Peter had no primacy. You STILL continue to give NO PROOF, at least they DID give you proof, according to you though, they TRIED, which is more than they could say for you.

Again, I ask – how does a person prove that something does not exist or that something does not happen?

What does negative evidence look like?

Asking me to prove something does not exist is a very cultic mindset.