Paradise on Earth

[onewithhim]

When I learned that the Bible speaks of a restored Garden of Eden and the restoration of mankind to the perfection and endless life that Adam forfeited, I was thrilled. Who doesn't want to keep living on this beautiful earth, with our loved ones, and being able to do all the things we love to do---endlessly?

If God said to you today, "When do you want to die?" would you say "now!!"? I don't think very many people would say that.

We CAN live forever here on Earth. The Bible tells us that we can.

Matthew 5:5
Psalm 37:9-11,29

[RightReason]

[Replying to tam]

Quote:

[Replying to post 690 by tam]

I got a chance to take a closer look at your link

http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/religion.html

And realized it isn't even about Christ's Church. It is mainly about Romans and their pagan customs prior to Christianity.


Yeah, that is exactly what I said:


Quote:
I'm not sure there is much more for me to say, but since you are a fan of links, here is a link to a description of the Roman State religion long before Christ, paying attention in particular to pontifex maximus under the 'high offices of state religion' section. Might shed some light for you on what the RCC was truly built upon, if indeed truth is what you seek. - tam

Hmmmmm . . . Im beginning to understand why you appear to be having such problems with basic reason and logic . . .

How is that the Catholic Churchs history? That would be like if there was a group of scientologists that converted to Catholicism and you link an article about all the background and practices of scientology and try to say that is the history of the Catholic Church. Major Fail!

Quote:
It is also very anti religious in general and pretty makes fun of all Christians, which would include you. Maybe you ought to read before you post.



It does nothing of the sort.

Perhaps the history struck a nerve with you?

Why would the history strike a nerve with me " Its not my history " LOL!

Here are some direct quotes from your link. Eerily similar to the typical complaints from nonbelievers about those who believe in God . . .


These types of comments are the exact criticisms hurled from atheists and agnostics regarding the history of Christianity. They attempt to equate belief in God as an outdated superstition. They downplay the history of Christ Himself and pretend He was puffed up to be more than He was. Exactly like your article does. LOL!



In so far as the Romans had a religion of their own, it was not based on any central belief, but on a mixture of fragmented rituals, taboos, superstitions, and traditions which they collected over the years from a number of sources.

forces which were believed to control people's existence and well-being

Most of the Roman gods and goddesses were a blend of several religious influences.

Most form of religious activity required some kind of sacrifice.

The Roman was by nature a very superstitious person. Emperors would tremble and even legions refuse to march if the omens were bad ones.

The survival of a religious faith depends on a continual renewal and affirmation of its beliefs, and sometimes on adapting its rituals to changes in social conditions and attitudes. To the Romans, the observance of religious rites was a public duty rather than a private impulse. their beliefs were founded on a variety of unconnected and often inconsistent mythological traditions, many of them derived from the Greek rather than Italian models.

The beginnings of Christianity are very blurry, as far as historical fact is concerned.
The birth date of Jesus himself is uncertain. (The idea of Jesus birth being the year AD 1, is due rather to a judgement made some 500 years after the even took place.)
Many point to the year 4 BC as the most likely date for Christ's birth, and yet that remains very uncertain. The year of his death is also not clearly established. It is assumed it took place between AD 26 and AD 36 (most likely though between AD 30 and AD 36), during the reign of Pontius Pilate as prefect of Judaea.

Historically speaking, Jesus of Nazareth was a charismatic Jewish leader, exorcist and religious teacher.

Evidence of Jesus' life and effect in Palestine is very patchy.

http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/religion.html

Perhaps you do not understand. I have refuted your refutation in the same manner. You think a verse in Scripture saying, I am the way, the truth and the life is somehow sufficient in countering the truth that Christ established an authoritative Church.


You don't think your words here are a little dishonest? I have quoted many more verses, most from my Lord, and some from Paul, to refute your claim.

No. Because they were all to the same effect. I have no problem with Bible verses where Christ says, Come to me or If anyone loves ME, they will obey MY teachings." You can quote one after the other but none of them negate Christ established an authoritative Church and I have no idea why you would think they do. Again, I think you are relying on some human negative perception on leadership. Leadership isnt a bad thing.

Are these not your words at the bottom of post 681:


Quote:
As for all your comments about our mother Mary, Ill simply ask Mary for her prayers to open

A yeah . . . meaning I already mentioned some stuff about her, but noted you have a huge misunderstanding about her and about how the Catholic Church sees her so not much more I can say when someone just simply doesnt get it or refuses to learn what is actually taught regarding her. Again, we are dealing with this false notion that honoring Mary somehow usurps our love and worship of God. That was the point of my comments and why I then choose to leave things in her capable hands.

Correct if you are speaking about certain teachings or practices from certain priests or clergy. But absolutely incorrect if you are referring to declared Church teachings regarding matters of the faith or morals. In those instances, the Catholic Church is offered protection from Christ Himself to not err. THAT is the difference.


May I ask, upon what do you base this claim?

Absolutely. Thanks for asking . . .

***************************************

Christ Himself gave this authority to Saint Peter and the other apostles when He bestowed the power of binding and loosing, of teaching and baptizing. He implicitly guaranteed the same power to the successors of the apostles when He promised to be with them all days, even to the consummation of the world.
Outside the Church there generally is no real recognition of authority in spiritual matters
It is unthinkable that an institution established by God for the salvation of souls could lead men into error and turn them away from God. If the Church could and did err in matters of faith or morals it would not be a true teacher; it would fail in its ministry of sanctification and would not lead men to salvation but would be responsible for their condemnation. A doctrine of faith or morals is a truth revealed by God dealing with what we must believe or what we must do in order to be saved.

The Church cannot change its defined teachings on faith and morals though it may restate them more clearly and more completely.

We know that the Church is infallible in matters of faith or morals because Christ promised that He would be with the apostles and their successors in their work of teaching until the end of time. It would be impossible for Christ to be with the official teachers of the Church and permit them to teach error.
https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura2a.htm



The Christian revelation was not enshrined in a Book; it was enshrined in a Life. And the record of that Life was not, at first, committed to paper; there were no Gospels when the Christian message was first preached. The safeguarding of revelation depended, therefore, upon a set of firsthand witnesses, who were called apostles, and next to them upon "the elders," whose memory would go furthest back


Who was to decide which of these writings were genuine, and which spurious? Necessarily the tradition of the Church was the arbiter. Thus, in time, when the heat of local partisanship had cooled, the Universal Church recognized certain writings as unquestionably genuine, and it is these that go to form the body of literature known as the New Testament.


The Church teaches that Scripture, whether of the Old or the New Testaments, was written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and is consequently free from error; no other title is needed to claim for it the assent of Christians. Its authority springs from its own origin. But it is true to say that we should not be conscious of this authority if the Church did not assure us of its existence. In the order of our knowledge, belief in the Church is antecedent to belief in Scripture, and is the condition of it. Historical criticism assures us, indeed, that the books of the New Testament are veracious in their main outline, but only revelation could make us confident in the belief that they have God as their author. It is the Church that assures us, for example, that the epistle of St. Jude has a higher authority than that of the epistle attributed to St. Barnabas; it is the Church, further, that assures us that St. Jude wrote under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit.


It would have been possible for Almighty God to have given us a revelation in Scripture so completely and so unmistakably that the teaching office of the Church would have been unnecessary"or rather, that the Church would have been able to confine herself to asserting the authenticity and veracity of Scripture, without further comment. But it is a commonplace of experience and of history that the Bible gives rise to various interpretations even amongst those who, in general, admit its veracity. It is, therefore, the office of the Church not only to preserve the text of Scripture, but to expound it"to compare a multitude of statements, made in a variety of different contexts, and to extract from these the essential principles of theology.


It is evident that for this purpose the Church must teach with authority. She must be able to say to a scholar, however profound his learning, "No, you have understood this passage in the wrong way; you have attached too much weight to this piece of evidence, as opposed to that. With all your learning, you are wrong." Unless some such authority exists, it is inevitable in the nature of the case that disputes should arise about interpretation such as may confuse the minds of the faithful; it is inevitable, also, in view of the temptations to cleverness that always beset the scholars mind, that such indiscriminate interpretation will eat away, in time, the supernatural fabric of Christian devotion, unless there be some authoritative voice to silence argument.



https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print ... the-church


The Catholic Church, which is the Body of Christ and His visible presence on earth, does not exist to reflect the views of this era or even of her current members. The Catholic Church exists to proclaim the teachings of her head and founder, Jesus Christ. She is His living and active presence and voice in the world.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/msgr-pop ... rist-who-i

I have no argument with that. This includes humbling oneself to recognize Christ put ordinary, flawed human beings to be our leaders.



You claim you have no argument with it, but then you add TO it. Changing it even.

Not at all. I am adding nothing. Just because one thing is true doesnt mean another separate thing is true also. The sky is blue and the grass is green. Both true. Saying that the grass is green is not adding to or changing that the sky is blue. Take a logic class.




*

you do not speak at all about the content of these scriptures and you do not answer the questions that I asked.

I told you repeatedly the content of your Scriptures I have no issue with. They dont negate the Scripture I point to. And what questions did you ask that I didnt answer? And I completely addressed your criticism of the early Church writers not being early enough for you " LOL! The writings of the early Church are so important because they are the earliest things we have written during that time period from those who were very close to the source. You disregard them " fine. The Bible didnt even come until after Christ walked the earth " LOL!

What first position? Christ took three with him. How was Peter given the first position? Simply because he was named first, when the writing gives the name of the three Christ took with him?

I answered this question. I explained Peter was singled out among the others. Peter was given a name change " very significant in Scripture. Peter was handed the keys. This too is significant. The second in command was always handed the keys.

You understand that all of this is AGAINST everything Christ taught, right?

No it isnt. Thats your opinion. God always used leaders and chosen ones. Your comments are unscriptural!

He who wants to be first must be last.

The greatest among you must be your servant.

Yep and what do I keep telling you the Pope is? A servant! Serving his flock!!!!! No contradiction!!!!!!!

And His words to the disciples when two of them asked (well, their mother asked) that one be at this left hand and the other at this right hand, in the Kingdom.

What did my Lord say to the disciples after that?

Jesus said to them, "You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father."

When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers.

Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave-- just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Yeah, Jesus is saying dont go on a power trip and abuse the office that I am creating and handing to you. Doesnt mean Peter wasnt given authority!!!!!!

Does that sound like a man who raised one apostle up over the others? Does it sound like the apostles (any of the twelve) were thinking that Christ raised one of them over the others?

Yes!! It also sounds like you dont understand the purpose of being called as a servant. Your human skepticism causes you to doubt that Christ is ok with leaders and teachers and for these leaders to have different rankings. Only the prideful would care if someone was higher then he was. There is nothing evil about a chain of command.

Quote:

Quote:
JW's do not have an 'only Jehovah' motto. JW's have the exact same model as you have: that their religion is "God's channel on earth; his visible organization on earth; they must remain in her, no matter what, and listen to whatever she says.

Ask any JW. Or just google it. Its not a secret.


Im sure JWs would take offense just as I do that faith in Christs Church does not contradict faith and love for God. For some reason you continue to be unable to get that.


Are you trying to take the focus off the fact that you said the JW faith was like mine, when instead it is the same as yours, just with a different body of men as its leaders?

I think you just conceded that point, yes?

I recognize that JWs think they are right, or they wouldnt believe what they believe, yes? And I recognize that you think you are right, or you wouldnt believe what you believe " LOL! Thats kind of obvious. All I can say is you have a very incomplete method of interpreting Scripture. Im afraid not a single verse you have cited contradicts anything the Catholic Church believes or teaches. Im surprised you didnt bring up the, Call no man father passage that most other Christians bring up regarding the Catholic Church. Yet another misinterpretation of beautiful Scripture. Yet another problem with telling oneself he is being guided by the light of Christ You miss the point of many passages or at the very least falsely apply the passage to something. Not cool.

Christ said 'he who hears you, hears me' to all the apostles, including to the 72 that He sent out. (luke 10:16) Certainly not just to Peter.

Yes, He said, He who hears you, hears me to His Church!!!!! While building His Church on Peter and handing Peter the keys and what does the Church do? The Church acknowledges all of this and treats Peter as leader/head and the first Church went on to have a hierarchical structure to it. Scripture supports this and historical records support this. From the beginning, followers of Jesus turned to the Church when they had questions or disputes, but you deny this authority. You dont think any earthly organization exists that has authoritative power given to her by Christ. You claim to believe so is putting a mediator between Christ and us. You think you can figure everything else without the Church via the Light of Christ. And continue to fail to see the illogic in such a belief. You claim we must test everything. Yes! What are you testing it against? Scripture? Scripture didnt fall from the sky. The Bible was compiled by the Church. There was even a period of time the Church existed before the Bible so how did Christians test something then? Ill tell you " they took it to the Church! And they accepted and listened to the Church!

You also seem to want to ignore the fact that Scripture can be misunderstood, misinterpreted (as is painfully obvious in the number of different denominations there exist all teaching different things!). So, again, how does one test something against Scripture when different people have different understandings about what Scripture says? Your system makes no sense!!!!!!!!!! It is wrought with problems!!!!! We must rely on an authoritative earthly Church " NOTHING ELSE MAKES SENSE!!!!! To hide behind some notion that one is relying on the Light of Christ is saying one is relying on their own thoughts, feelings, preconceptions, personal interpretation, and most likely wishful thinking.

You are missing a single actual command from Christ that I keep asking you for.

You are the one missing it if you honestly believe proper interpretation of Scripture is to look at isolated, single verses. Where is the single verse in Scripture explaining the Trinity? And just so you are aware, Onewithhim would provide several verses in Scripture that she thinks contradict your notion of the Trinity. Yikes! Must mean the Trinity is a false teaching.

"If anyone loves ME, they will obey MY teachings."

What are you 10? This would be like some kid going to the neighbors house and the neighbor says, please put the maple syrup back into the refrigerator and the child responds, Im sorry, to do that would usurp the authority of my mother, she has told me, If anyone loves Me, they will obey my teachings. And I dont recall keeping the syrup in the refrigerator as a teaching of my mother. Shes never said anything of the kind.

The Church is the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is to listen to their Head: Christ.

Except that Christ told us that it is right and good that we listen to His Church because He handed Peter the keys and gave His Church power and authority.

You cannot even show that the RCC IS that Church.

I can and briefly hit on it, though a topic for another thread. The Catholic Church meets the requirements of the four marks. We can discuss further if you like.

Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than human beings! Acts 5:29

So could that have been an excuse not to listen to anything Paul or Pete had to say? I mean they were human.

So now you're not even listening to Peter (or the rest of the apostles).

But you said I am to only listen to Christ and only obey Him. And now you are asking me to listen to Peter? But he is a mere human!

(On top of that... their teaching of hell (an eternal place of torment) is in error; their teaching on purgatory is in error and suggests that Christ is not enough; that a person needs to have further purification after they die. There are other errors as well)

Im afraid that is your opinion. Gee, wish there was an authoritative earthly Church we go to clear this up.

Quote:
Quote:
"Go and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to obey everything I have commanded YOU."


Yes, who was told to go and make disciples of all nations? The Church! And how could she do so if she were not One, Holy, Catholic, or Apostolic? The Church could not have spread Christianity throughout the world without a unified message and it could not offer a unified message without authority to do so! Nothing else makes sense and you just cant acknowledge it!!!!!!


Red herring.

How is that a red herring? Its faith, reason, and logic!

And what makes you think He cannot tell me (or anyone) about the prodigal son, or anything else that He wishes us to know?

Has He? All of these Scripture passages you quote and all of the opinions about these Scripture passages you quote did you audibly hear them from Christ Himself? Do elaborate.

But we CAN know Him. We can know Him because He is alive. Truly alive.

Talk about a red herring. Catholics believe Christ is more alive than you do. We take Him for His word. Whether He is telling us He is establishing a Church that we should listen to or whether He is telling us, Truly, Truly I say to you my flesh is real flesh and my drink is real drink. We believe He is truly present in the Holy Eucharist. You however reduce Him to mere symbol.

[tam]

Peace again to you,

[Replying to tam]

A good little article about the problem of bailing on Christs Church.

No... this is an article about the problem of bailing on what you believe to be Christ's church.

the church was not a human invention.

The Church is the Body of Christ.

And He is the head of the body, the church; Colossians 1:18

Indeed, no one ever hated his own body, but he nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church. For we are members of His body. Ephesians 5:29, 30

The body is a unit, though it is comprised of many parts. And although its parts are many, they all form one body. So it is with Christ. For in one spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free, and we were all given one Spirit to drink. 1 Corinth 12:12, 13

THAT Church - the Body of Christ - is not a human invention.


But men do want human leaders. Christ is not enough for (most of) them, just as God was not enough of a King for Israel when she demanded a human king, in order to be like all the other nations.

If you want to get rid of the church (the RCC), you also need to get rid of Jesus.

This is a lie.

This is a lie that religions have told their members from the start, that religions STILL tell their members in order to keep those members enslaved to them, subdued, afraid to leave.

The WTS teaches the exact same lie as you are teaching: leave the organization, leave God.


The truth is the exact opposite:

"Stop touching the unclean thing and I will take you in."

"Come out of her, my people!"

"Come, follow ME!"

You cant have one without the other.

Same lie as above.

the fact that Jesus started the church with imperfect people should make us marvel at Gods incredible grace.

He started His Church (His Body; His Bride) with Himself. Yes? Him being the cornerstone; Him also being the Head. Just as He was also the root of David, as well as David's Lord (and so David's head).

But yes... all who come into His Church (His Body) beginning with the apostles, are imperfect. That we are called and forgiven does indeed show the grace of God.

That God would use ordinary, broken human beings as vessels of his grace, and delight in it is awe-inspiring.

I agree. But all who receive the grace of God are vessels of His grace, yes?

He could have spoken to the world directly, but instead chose to use broken people to showcase his grace to a world in need of redemption

God speaks to us through His Son.

On many past occasions and in many different ways, God spoke to our fathers through the prophets. But in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, Hebrews 1:1,2

Christ is the mediator between man and God.

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 1Tim 2:5

Christ is our Advocate.

My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 1John 2:1


You will note that no one said that Mary (or anyone else who has died) is an advocate for us when we sin.

Most of the New Testament is not a story of an idealized church where everything worked perfectly all the time just read 1 Corinthians.

When did I claim otherwise?

if youre reading this article and you have any modicum of faith in Jesus, may I suggest your faith is actually the result of the mission of the church.

Never mind what Christ said though, right? Never mind the power and authority that Christ and God have to draw and call men to Christ.

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."


"And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

"I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd."

Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

Very few people come to know Jesus [strike]because he appears to them supernaturally [/strike]when they are alone and calls them by name.

And yet He said,

Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever does not enter the sheepfold by the gate, but climbs in some other way, is a thief and a robber. But the one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen for his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all who are his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice..



So the author directly contradicts Christ.


Yet people will listen to his/her words even over the words of Christ.

"A horrible and shocking thing has happened in the land: The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way.

Does that ever happen? Sure. But not to 99.9% of us.

I would not deign to guess a percentage. Especially not if I were a person who claims not to hear His voice and so could not possibly believe that I had received that number from Him.

But as my Lord said (and so few truly believe Him):

"Many are called, few are chosen."

"Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles? Then I will tell them plainly, I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness."




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[RightReason]

[Replying to tam]

THAT Church - the Body of Christ - is not a human invention


But men do want human leaders. Christ is not enough for (most of) them, just as God was not enough of a King for Israel when she demanded a human king, in order to be like all the other nations. .

<sigh> we followers of Christ want human leaders because in this case we want what Christ wants. Christ obviously wanted human leaders for His Church. Why do you dismiss His words?

Quote:
If you want to get rid of the church (the RCC), you also need to get rid of Jesus.


This is a lie.

Im afraid that is merely your opinion. It would be like thinking you can claim to be a follower of Christ but reject His teachings. It simply doesnt jive.

Quote:
the fact that Jesus started the church with imperfect people should make us marvel at Gods incredible grace.


He started His Church (His Body; His Bride) with Himself

Aaaaaaand with imperfect people. Why cant you handle that?

I agree. But all who receive the grace of God are vessels of His grace, yes?

Yes, but He also chose certain individuals to play a certain role and gave them special authority accordingly. Again it isnt a slight from God for Him to use people for whatever purposes He likes. Its weird to me to not understand that people like Peter and Paul had a special role in salvation history and that fact does NOT undermine Gods plan " it fulfills it.

God speaks to us through His Son.

Yep, and His son left us His Church and instructed His Church, He who hears you, hears me. Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven. Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven him. Whose sins you retain, they are retained.

Its funny how earlier you reduce this command of Christ to us asking one another for forgiveness, but the second part of what Christ said then wouldnt make sense. Clearly, He was giving His Church a power to forgive sins, because then He immediately tells them, whose sins you retain, they are retained. That requires power and authority, which you dismiss.

You will note that no one said that Mary (or anyone else who has died) is an advocate for us when we sin.

Already been thru this . . .

Christ is our one mediator/intercessor, yet, St. Paul commands all Christians to be intercessors/mediators. Then notice the first word in verse five: For there is one God and one mediator And then in verse seven he says, For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle. What is an apostle if not a mediator? The very definition of apostle, according to Thayers Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, is a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders. Thats an essential part of what a mediator is. In short, St. Paul says we are all called to be mediators because Christ is the one mediator and for this reason he was called to be a mediator of Gods love and grace to the world!

Is this a contradiction? Not at all! The fact that Jesus is our one mediator does not preclude him from communicating this power by way of participation. The Bible also declares: But you are not to be called Rabbi, for you have one teacher, (Gr. " didaskolos) and you are all brethren. This text cannot be any clearer, yet James 3:1 and Ephesians 4:11 tell us we have many teachers (Gr. " didaskoloi) in the Church. The key is to understand that the many teachers and mediators in the body of Christ do not take away from Christ as the one teacher and mediator because they are, in a sense, Christ on this earth and they serve to establish his offices of teacher and mediator in him. As members of the body of Christ graced with a specific task by Christ they can say with St. Paul in Galatians 2:20, It is not I, but Christ who [teaches] in me

It is this image of the Body of Christ that aids us in understanding how one member of the body can aid another in the communication of the divine life to one another without diminishing the role of "the head." For example, if I pick up a pen here on my desk would we say the head, or I, would have had nothing to do with it? Oh no, your hand did that, Tim, not you!

So it is with Christ and his Body. Eph. 1:22-23 goes so far as to say the Church is, The fullness of him who fills all in all. Thus, the Church is Christ in this world. This does not take away from Christ's unique mediation; it establishes that unique mediation. Different members of the Church mediate various graces in accordance with their respective gifts while the whole body functions to bring Christ to the world. Romans 12:4-6 says:

For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/onlin ... od-and-men

if youre reading this article and you have any modicum of faith in Jesus, may I suggest your faith is actually the result of the mission of the church.


Never mind what Christ said though, right? Never mind the power and authority that Christ and God have to draw and call men to Christ.

Wow! You really cant acknowledge this. As I already explained multiple times now Christ establishing an authoritative Church does not diminish the power and authority of Christ.

Quote:
Very few people come to know Jesus because he appears to them supernaturally when they are alone and calls them by name.


And yet He said,

Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever does not enter the sheepfold by the gate, but climbs in some other way, is a thief and a robber. But the one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen for his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all who are his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice..




So the author directly contradicts Christ.

Uuuh . . . strawman much? You crossed out the actual words for the author saying few people come to know Juesus because He appears to them supernaturally, so no that does not contradict Christ.


You continue to miss the point . . . Christ said, Blessed is he who believes but does not see We all will not get the privilege of physically seeing or audibly hearing Christ while on earth. Because of this, Jesus left us an earthly authoritative Church as our guide. Your knowledge about Christ mostly comes from His Church and you havent the gratefulness to thank Christ for such a gift.

Again, without an authoritative Church, how in the world do you know the Trinity is true? JWs can support Scripture that they say contradicts the teaching of the Trinity. How could or would you know and believe you are getting it right about the Trinity if it werent for Christs Church? Did God personally reveal this to you? And what do you say when a JW says they too by the Light of Christ have come to reject the Trinity " that they find it unscriptural and believe Christ is telling them something different? You can never seem to answer these questions.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 701 by RightReason]

Correct if you are speaking about certain teachings or practices from certain priests or clergy. But absolutely incorrect if you are referring to declared Church teachings regarding matters of the faith or morals. In those instances, the Catholic Church is offered protection from Christ Himself to not err. THAT is the difference.


May I ask, upon what do you base this claim?

Absolutely. Thanks for asking . . .

And you link to articles yet again.

From your article:

It is unthinkable that an institution established by God for the salvation of souls could lead men into error and turn them away from God.

And yet, the RCC has done just that!

Inquisitions; persecuting and punishing those who disagreed with the RCC - in direct contradiction to Christ's teaching; cover-up of child abuse (physical and sexual); instituting residential schools for native children and tearing them from their families and their culture.

We know that the Church is infallible in matters of faith or morals because Christ promised that He would be with the apostles and their successors in their work of teaching until the end of time. It would be impossible for Christ to be with the official teachers of the Church and permit them to teach error.

So then what does it say about the RCC that it has taught error?


I did not see anything in the other two articles that responded to my question.

you do not speak at all about the content of these scriptures and you do not answer the questions that I asked.

I told you repeatedly the content of your Scriptures I have no issue with. They dont negate the Scripture I point to. And what questions did you ask that I didnt answer?

Seriously? Go back and read. I ask many questions that go unanswered. Indeed, you did not even answer the questions that I asked in my previous post. Go back and read.

And I completely addressed your criticism of the early Church writers not being early enough for you " LOL!

No, see now you are trying to change what happened. You made a claim about the FIRST Christians. I asked you for evidence from the FIRST Christians to support your claim about the FIRST Christians - what they believed. You said the FIRST Christians recognized the primacy of Peter. We do have records from those first Christians (the NT is a record from the first Christians). Those records do not support your claim.

What first position? Christ took three with him. How was Peter given the first position? Simply because he was named first, when the writing gives the name of the three Christ took with him?

I answered this question.

No... your claim - which my quote here is in response to - was this:

When our Lord selects a group of three for some special event, such as the Transfiguration, St. Peter is in the first position.

Care to respond to my questions with that context in mind?

You understand that all of this is AGAINST everything Christ taught, right?

No it isnt. Thats your opinion. God always used leaders and chosen ones. Your comments are unscriptural!

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son...

He who wants to be first must be last.

The greatest among you must be your servant.

Yep and what do I keep telling you the Pope is? A servant! Serving his flock!!!!! No contradiction!!!!!!!

His flock?

Don't the sheep belong to Christ (given to Him by God)?

And His words to the disciples when two of them asked (well, their mother asked) that one be at this left hand and the other at this right hand, in the Kingdom.

What did my Lord say to the disciples after that?

Jesus said to them, "You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father."

When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers.

Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave-- just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Yeah, Jesus is saying dont go on a power trip and abuse the office that I am creating and handing to you. Doesnt mean Peter wasnt given authority!!!!!!

But my Lord's words instructing the twelve not to be called leaders/masters/rabbis (teachers) because they have ONE Teacher/Leader/Master (Christ), and they are ALL brothers... DO show that Peter was not given authority over the other apostles.

The above verses are in addition to that.

Does that sound like a man who raised one apostle up over the others? Does it sound like the apostles (any of the twelve) were thinking that Christ raised one of them over the others?

Yes!!

Yes, it sounds like the other apostles were thinking that Christ raised one of them over the others?

What about it sounds like Christ raised one apostle over the others? What about it sounds like the apostles were thinking that Christ raised one of them over the others?

Christ said 'he who hears you, hears me' to all the apostles, including to the 72 that He sent out. (luke 10:16) Certainly not just to Peter.

Yes, He said, He who hears you, hears me to His Church!!!!!

Sigh.

Are we - who belong to Christ and who are part of His Body - not also His Church?

Scripture supports this and historical records support this. From the beginning, followers of Jesus turned to the Church when they had questions or disputes, but you deny this authority. You dont think any earthly organization exists that has authoritative power given to her by Christ. You claim to believe so is putting a mediator between Christ and us. You think you can figure everything else without the Church via the Light of Christ. And continue to fail to see the illogic in such a belief. You claim we must test everything. Yes! What are you testing it against? Scripture? Scripture didnt fall from the sky. The Bible was compiled by the Church. There was even a period of time the Church existed before the Bible...

And Christ existed before all of these.

Why would you not drink water straight from the source?

The RCC is not the truth. She is not the source. She is not the Rock from whom one may drink pure water.

Christ is the Truth. Christ is the Rock. The same Rock that Israel drank from in the desert.

Why not drink water directly from the Rock?

You also seem to want to ignore the fact that Scripture can be misunderstood, misinterpreted (as is painfully obvious in the number of different denominations there exist all teaching different things!). So, again, how does one test something against Scripture when different people have different understandings about what Scripture says? Your system makes no sense!!!!!!!!!! It is wrought with problems!!!!!

One needs Christ in order to have their eyes opened to understand what is written, yes?

Even the apostles did not understand what was written without Him. So you can simply rely upon what has been handed down (and hope that was never polluted). Or you could just go to the source - Christ - and ask Him to teach you what is true.

We must rely on an authoritative earthly Church " NOTHING ELSE MAKES SENSE!!!!!

Nothing else makes sense to you. But how is that not a lack of faith in Christ? In His words that He would lead us into all truth, that His sheep would listen to His voice?

To hide behind some notion that one is relying on the Light of Christ is saying one is relying on their own thoughts, feelings, preconceptions, personal interpretation, and most likely wishful thinking.

Who is hiding?


It sounds as though you wish for me to deny my Lord by saying that it is not Him speaking to me. I cannot do that. Not for you; not for anyone. I cannot even pretend that.

RR, just because you do not (yet) know His voice, does not mean that He does not speak; or that no one else hears Him. It does not mean that He, Himself, cannot teach His sheep and lead them into all truth.

Scripture supports that He does indeed do this.

You are missing a single actual command from Christ that I keep asking you for.

You are the one missing it if you honestly believe proper interpretation of Scripture is to look at isolated, single verses.

Lol, one would expect that there would at least BE a single verse to that effect.

Where is the single verse in Scripture explaining the Trinity? And just so you are aware, Onewithhim would provide several verses in Scripture that she thinks contradict your notion of the Trinity.

Several verses in what is written DO contradict the notion (not MY notion) of the trinity.

Yikes! Must mean the Trinity is a false teaching.

It is a false teaching.

"If anyone loves ME, they will obey MY teachings."

What are you 10? This would be like some kid going to the neighbors house and the neighbor says, please put the maple syrup back into the refrigerator and the child responds, Im sorry, to do that would usurp the authority of my mother, she has told me, If anyone loves Me, they will obey my teachings. And I dont recall keeping the syrup in the refrigerator as a teaching of my mother. Shes never said anything of the kind.

No, it would be like going into the neighbor's house and the neighbor says, 'go and strike my son because he disagrees with me', and the child responds, "I'm sorry, to do that would usurp the authority of my 'mother', she has tole me, "If anyone loves me, they will obey my teachings." And I don't recall my mother ever saying to strike anyone. In fact, she said NOT to strike anyone."

You cannot even show that the RCC IS that Church.

I can and briefly hit on it, though a topic for another thread. The Catholic Church meets the requirements of the four marks. We can discuss further if you like.

If you are going to state something, then you should probably back it up. Of course the WTS also teaches that there are marks to the 'true religion' (their own of course).

Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than human beings! Acts 5:29

So could that have been an excuse not to listen to anything Paul or Pete had to say? I mean they were human.

It would have been a reason not to listen to them if they said to do something that is against what God teaches (such as "This is my Son, whom I have chosen. Listen to Him). If one listened to them over Christ, then how could one say that they loved Christ more than them?

Like when Paul rebuked Peter publicly and to his face, for leading people astray (people who should have been looking to Christ and not to Peter - and this is a perfect example of what happens when we look to men, even men who belong to Christ, to lead us, instead of to Christ) by his actions of withdrawing from the gentiles when Jews were around.

Like when Paul told the Corinthians in his second letter to expel and shun the 'immoral' brother from among them. That is not what Christ taught; and it caused division in the Corinthians. Paul soon retracted his words in his third letter to the Corinthians.

So men can and do make mistakes, even those appointed as apostles by Christ. But these men are not supposed to be teaching others to follow THEM - they are supposed to be bearing witness to Christ, teaching others to follow CHRIST, to listen to CHRIST, to do as CHRIST says.

As Paul also said:


I am astonished how quickly you are deserting the One who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel"

So people were falling away right from the start.

which is not even a gospel. Evidently some people are troubling you and trying to distort the gospel of Christ.

So there were false teachers - wolves - among the sheep right from the start.


But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be under a divine curse!


Note what Paul says (not the part about the curse, because Christ said bless and do not curse, but I left it in to show what Paul thought):

Even if WE preach a contrary gospel.

Doesn't sound like he was promoting a 'follow us no matter what because it is impossible that we would ever be in error with regard to the gospel' kind of doctrine.

So now you're not even listening to Peter (or the rest of the apostles).

But you said I am to only listen to Christ and only obey Him. And now you are asking me to listen to Peter? But he is a mere human!

Oh, I'm pretty sure you know I was pointing out the irony of claiming that we must listen to Peter... and so to the RCC because it claims to be built on Peter... but then actually NOT listening to Peter.

(On top of that... their teaching of hell (an eternal place of torment) is in error; their teaching on purgatory is in error and suggests that Christ is not enough; that a person needs to have further purification after they die. There are other errors as well)

Im afraid that is your opinion. Gee, wish there was an authoritative earthly Church we go to clear this up.

The same organization that teaches the false things to begin with? How would they help clear it up?

Quote:
Quote:
"Go and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to obey everything I have commanded YOU."


Yes, who was told to go and make disciples of all nations?

The apostles. And if they were told to teach those disciple to obey everything that Christ commanded them (the apostles)... then those disciples were - in turn - to go and make disciples of all nations, and teach THOSE disciples to obey everything that Christ commanded them.


Do you see?


Do you also see that the power from on high that the apostles received was holy spirit (when Christ breathed holy spirit upon them)? Holy spirit is given to every member of the Body of Christ. To every Christian (anointed ones). Yes, different members have different roles in the Body, but their HEAD is Christ; their LEADER is Christ. They all receive power from on high when they receive holy spirit.

And what makes you think He cannot tell me (or anyone) about the prodigal son, or anything else that He wishes us to know?

Has He? All of these Scripture passages you quote and all of the opinions about these Scripture passages you quote did you audibly hear them from Christ Himself? Do elaborate.

Not the question I asked.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam]

THAT Church - the Body of Christ - is not a human invention


But men do want human leaders. Christ is not enough for (most of) them, just as God was not enough of a King for Israel when she demanded a human king, in order to be like all the other nations. .

<sigh> we followers of Christ want human leaders because in this case we want what Christ wants. Christ obviously wanted human leaders for His Church. Why do you dismiss His words?

You have yet to provide His words to that effect. You have only provided one religion's interpretation of His words. Hardly the same thing.

I do not obey the interpretations of men.

I obey Christ.

Quote:
If you want to get rid of the church (the RCC), you also need to get rid of Jesus.


This is a lie.

Im afraid that is merely your opinion.

You are entitled to believe whatever you want. But it is not merely my opinion. I know it to be true. I have nothing to do with the RCC or any other religion, and yet I am in Christ. I lam one of His sheep. He called me to Him. His Father drew me to His Son.

No religion required.

It would be like thinking you can claim to be a follower of Christ but reject His teachings.

It would not be like that at all. Because the RCC does not equal Christ.

And as has been shown through various times in history, the RCC and those who obeyed the RCC, rejected His teachings and followed their own.


That is not an opinion. That is a proven fact that you refuse to acknowledge. The dirt in the RCC is no longer hidden; it can no longer be swept under the rug. Nor is the dirt just the deeds of a few wayward people; nor just a few wayward priests. The RCC - the entity that you call the Church - disobeyed Christ and taught others to do the same. Shed innocent blood; persecuted people (against the command of Christ).

Quote:
the fact that Jesus started the church with imperfect people should make us marvel at Gods incredible grace.


He started His Church (His Body; His Bride) with Himself

Aaaaaaand with imperfect people. Why cant you handle that?

Handle what? That everyone in the church is imperfect?

My full quote:

He started His Church (His Body; His Bride) with Himself. Yes? Him being the cornerstone; Him also being the Head. Just as He was also the root of David, as well as David's Lord (and so David's head).

But yes... all who come into His Church (His Body) beginning with the apostles, are imperfect. That we are called and forgiven does indeed show the grace of God.

**

God speaks to us through His Son.

Yep, and His son left us His Church and instructed His Church, He who hears you, hears me. Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven. Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven him. Whose sins you retain, they are retained.

Earlier you suggested that I take a class in logic. Might I suggest you follow your own advice?

Just because the apostles (and anyone afterward who had been given holy spirit) could forgive sins on earth, does not mean one HAS to come to them in order to be forgiven.

Just because hearing the apostles (or anyone Christ sends out with a message to speak) means that one is hearing Christ, does not mean that Christ Himself does not speak.

Its funny how earlier you reduce this command of Christ to us asking one another for forgiveness, but the second part of what Christ said then wouldnt make sense.

I did not reduce any command of His. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Clearly, He was giving His Church a power to forgive sins, because then He immediately tells them, whose sins you retain, they are retained. That requires power and authority, which you dismiss.

I dismiss no such thing.

You will note that no one said that Mary (or anyone else who has died) is an advocate for us when we sin.

Already been thru this . . .

My statement is correct.


I am not responding to the content of any more links from you. I think I've done that more than enough. If you have something more you want to say to me, then you say it.

Quote:
Very few people come to know Jesus because he appears to them supernaturally when they are alone and calls them by name.


And yet He said,

Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever does not enter the sheepfold by the gate, but climbs in some other way, is a thief and a robber. But the one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen for his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all who are his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice..




So the author directly contradicts Christ.

Uuuh . . . strawman much? You crossed out the actual words for the author saying few people come to know Juesus because He appears to them supernaturally, so no that does not contradict Christ.

I have no idea what the author means by 'supernaturally'.

But I do know that Christ calls His sheep by name and they follow Him, listening to His voice.

You continue to miss the point . . . Christ said, Blessed is he who believes but does not see

Yes, we do not see Christ with our physical eyes. But that does not mean that we do not HEAR; else we would not have been warned,

"Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts..."

We all will not get the privilege of physically seeing or audibly hearing Christ while on earth. Because of this, Jesus left us an earthly authoritative Church as our guide.

No... this is people walking by sight: visible organizations; visible leaders; buildings, special clothing, holy books, etc, etc. Same thing men have ALWAYS done.

But Christ did not say that we were going to be doing the same things men have always done. Christ said that the time was coming when the true worshipers would be worshiping - NOT on this mountain or that mountain - but in spirit and in Truth.

Your knowledge about Christ mostly comes from His Church and you havent the gratefulness to thank Christ for such a gift.

My knowing Christ does NOT come from the RCC. My knowing Christ comes from HIM. Because God drew me to His Son; and that Son taught me about Himself and shows me His Father.

You (and your religion) want me to deny this great gift from them. You want me to give their glory to some other entity (the RCC), instead of to my Lord and to my God.

I will not do this.

Again, without an authoritative Church, how in the world do you know the Trinity is true?

It is not true.

JWs can support Scripture that they say contradicts the teaching of the Trinity.

Because the trinity is not true.

How could or would you know and believe you are getting it right about the Trinity if it werent for Christs Church?

Christ's Church is not the RCC.

I would know it was true if Christ taught it to me. But He did not. He did not teach it to His apostles. He did not teach it in anything that is written. Indeed, some of His words speak to the opposite. Same as His words speak to the opposite when it comes to your claim that He appointed one apostle over the other apostles.

And what do you say when a JW says they too by the Light of Christ have come to reject the Trinity

I don't think a JW would say that. I think a JW would say that it is not in scripture, that scripture teaches against it, and so they reject it.

" that they find it unscriptural and believe Christ is telling them something different?

They would not say that Christ is telling them something different because they do not believe that Christ speaks (despite scripture stating that He does).

You can never seem to answer these questions.

I believe I have answered them before this post. But if I have not, you can see that I did respond to them here and now.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[RightReason]

[Replying to tam]


Who is Christs congregation? Those who follows His teachings? What are His teachings? I read the same Bible as you and come to an entirely different conclusion about Christs teachings then you. Where is the authority in Scripture? Where is the authority in the Church? Who is getting it right? And how can they know? It isnt enough to be sincere, history has proven as much. You need to follow the logic and reason. Your beliefs are not logical.

I did not see anything in the other two articles that responded to my question.

Really?

I stated the fact that the Catholic Church is offered protection from Christ Himself to not err in when it comes to her teachings regarding matters of faith and morals.


You asked, May I ask, upon what do you base this claim?

I provided a long detailed version of how we can know this. Here is the shortened response . . .


Christ Himself gave this authority to Saint Peter and the other apostles when He bestowed the power of binding and loosing, of teaching and baptizing. He implicitly guaranteed the same power to the successors of the apostles when He promised to be with them all days, even to the consummation of the world.


We know that the Church is infallible in matters of faith or morals because Christ promised that He would be with the apostles and their successors in their work of teaching until the end of time. It would be impossible for Christ to be with the official teachers of the Church and permit them to teach error.

https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura2a.htm



It would have been possible for Almighty God to have given us a revelation in Scripture so completely and so unmistakably that the teaching office of the Church would have been unnecessary"or rather, that the Church would have been able to confine herself to asserting the authenticity and veracity of Scripture, without further comment. But it is a commonplace of experience and of history that the Bible gives rise to various interpretations even amongst those who, in general, admit its veracity. It is, therefore, the office of the Church not only to preserve the text of Scripture, but to expound it"to compare a multitude of statements, made in a variety of different contexts, and to extract from these the essential principles of theology.


It is evident that for this purpose the Church must teach with authority.


https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print ... -of-the-ch...


To not accept the faith, Scripture, logic and reasoning behind this conclusion is to not trust Christ and His establishment of His Church and promise to remain with His Church.

You said the FIRST Christians recognized the primacy of Peter. We do have records from those first Christians (the NT is a record from the first Christians). Those records do not support your claim.

They most certainly do and I show from Scripture this was the case. Also, the fact that the early Christians directly after all those who actually were alive when Jesus walked the earth too believed and taught the primacy of Peter (as evidenced in the early Church writings) show they received the information that had obviously been passed on to them and were simply continuing and carrying out what was known and accepted. It isnt until many many years later that groups like your own come along and decided to pick and choose what teachings they want to accept and which ones they dont and in doing so they (even if unaware) have in fact created their own religion and by default must then claim the Church never had authority in the first place.

Quote:
Quote:
What first position? Christ took three with him. How was Peter given the first position? Simply because he was named first, when the writing gives the name of the three Christ took with him?

Answering once again . . .



4. Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (see Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him "the first" (10:2). (Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.)

5. Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else. In one example to the contrary, Galatians 2:9, where he is listed after James and before John, he is clearly pre-eminent in the entire context (see, for example, 1:18-19; 2:7-8).

6. Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, "Rock," solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:18).

7. Likewise, Peter is regarded by Jesus as the chief shepherd after himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pt 5:2).

8. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his "faith fail not" (Lk 22:32).

9. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to "strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22:32).

10. Peter first confesses Christ's divinity (Mt 16:16).

11. Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).

12. Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.

13. Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15).

14. Jesus Christ uniquely associates himself and Peter in the miracle of the tribute money (Mt 17:24-27).

15. Christ teaches from Peter's boat, and the miraculous catch of fish follows (Lk 5:1-11): perhaps a metaphor for the pope as a "fisher of men" (Mt 4:19).

16. Peter was the first apostle to set out for, and enter, the empty tomb (Lk 24:12; Jn 20:6).

17. Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).

18. Peter leads the apostles in fishing (Jn 21:2-3,11). The "bark" (boat) of Peter has been regarded by Catholics as a figure of the Church, with Peter at the helm.

19. Peter alone casts himself into the sea to come to Jesus (Jn 21:7).

20. Peter's words are the first recorded and most important in the Upper Room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).

21. Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).

22. Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to "preach the Gospel" in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).

23. Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).

24. Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11).

25. Peter's shadow works miracles (Acts 5:15).

26. Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).

27. Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6).

28. Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).

29. Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).

30. Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison"Acts 12:1-17).

31. The whole Church (strongly implied) prays for Peter "without ceasing" when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5).

32. Peter presides over and opens the first council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterward accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).

33. Paul distinguishes the Lord's postresurrection appearances to Peter from those to other apostles (1 Cor 15:4-5).

34. Peter is often spoken of as distinct among apostles (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:28, 32; Acts 2:37; 5:29; 1 Cor 9:5).

35. Peter is often spokesman for the other apostles, especially at climactic moments (Mk 8:29; Mt 18:21; Lk 9:5; 12:41; Jn 6:67).

36. Peter's name is always the first listed of the "inner circle" of the disciples (Peter, James and John"Mt 17:1; 26:37, 40; Mk 5:37; 14:37).

37. Peter is often the central figure relating to Jesus in dramatic Gospel scenes such as walking on the water (Mt 14:28-32; Lk 5:1, Mk 10:28; Mt 17:24).

38. Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).

39. Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible. Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60 percent of the time any disciple is referred to.

40. Peter's proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the "House of Israel""an example of "binding and loosing."

41. Peter was the first "charismatic," having judged authoritatively the first instance of the gift of tongues as genuine (Acts 2:14-21).

42. Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).

43. Peter (presumably) takes the lead in the first recorded mass baptism (Acts 2:41).

44. Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

45. Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called "visitation of the churches" (Acts 9:32-38, 43). Paul preached at Damascus immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:20), but had not traveled there for that purpose (God changed his plans). His missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2.

46. Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for 15 days at the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.

47. Peter acts, by strong implication, as the chief bishop/shepherd of the Church (1 Pt 5:1), since he exhorts all the other bishops, or "elders."

48. Peter interprets prophecy (2 Pt 1:16-21).

49. Peter corrects those who misuse Paul's writings (2 Pt 3:15-16).

50. Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome, according to most scholars, as its bishop, and as the universal bishop (pope) of the early Church. "Babylon" (1 Pt 5:13) is regarded as code for Rome.

In conclusion, it strains credulity to think that God would present Peter with such prominence in the Bible without some meaning and import for later Christian history"in particular, Church government. The papacy is the most plausible (we believe actual) fulfillment of this.

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture ... ?recnum=81

The Scriptural evidence for the primacy of Peter is overwhelming.

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be under a divine curse!

Oh, the irony . . . how can Paul speak with such authority to his followers? Why should they even accept that he is now telling them to be wary of anyone, including himself if he isnt speaking to them with authority? What his words actually show is that the Church has never been a group of people expected to blindly follow as you and others accuse. What his words show is all of us still need to look out for red flags if some within or some who claim to be speaking for Christ are in fact teaching that which is contrary to Christ. Pauls words here are in no way saying no need to listen to me or the Church. Hes saying the opposite in the very fact that he actually is speaking authoritatively to them and telling them God will take care of those who attempt to teach something contrary (let him be under a divine curse) He is actually acknowledging that we can trust him and the Church " we have Gods promise

The same organization that teaches the false things to begin with? How would they help clear it up?

The Church does not teach false teachings and how might your personal take on what Christ is telling you clear something up? How might that make sense? It doesnt!!!!!!

You have only provided one religion's interpretation of His words.. . .

I do not obey the interpretations of men.

I obey Christ.

Ha, ha, ha . . . you mean you do what you personally think Christ is telling you? How convenient. Talk about obeying the interpretation of men.


God can certainly reveal mistakes made by believers or individuals within the Church, and has. This however isnt proof the Church is wrong " it only proves all the more that the Church is prevented from messing things up when it comes to matters of faith and morals. Heretics or immoral bastards within the Church are eventually found out.

Part of our faith is trusting and obeying the Church. I dont really see any other way that makes sense. If we dont believe Christs promise that He will remain with His Church and guide us in Truth, then we end up with a flawed system.

But what we have now is the faith that the Church is our earthly guide and, He who hears you, hears me. Churches that have disbanded, or ceased to be are obviously not Christs Church because Christ promised to remain with His Church always. Churches that came on the scene late are obviously not Christs Church " again Christ promised to stay with His Church. Churches that change their teachings according to the fashion of the day cannot be Christs Church. Truth doesnt change. Contraception didnt suddenly become moral because it became readily available and everyone started using it.

I love G. K. Chestertons words about how/why we can/should trust the Church . . .

It does not, in the conventional phrase, believe what the Bible says, for the simple reason that the Bible does not say anything. You cannot put a book in the witness-box and ask it what it really means. The Fundamentalist controversy itself destroys Fundamentalism. The Bible by itself cannot be a basis of agreement when it is a cause of disagreement; it cannot be the common ground of Christians when some take it allegorically and some literally.



Christians, from the beginning, have relied on the testimony of their fellow men regarding who and what Jesus did. Only a few Christians witnessed the Resurrection and yet we have relied on their testimony, corroborated with history, that the Resurrection actually occurred and it is a matter of faith that we have come to believe the first Christians who told us Jesus told them He appointed a few to speak authoritatively for Him. Even if you dont admit it, you have come to accept this if you see the Bible as the inspired word of God, because of course; the Bible came from Christs Church.


That's my point. What was chosen to comprise the Bible was not based on the members comprising the Church at that time, on the period of history, on the boisterous personality of one of the voters, etc. It is a matter of faith that we believe Christ's promise that He will remain with His Church and keep her free from error and that what is contained in the Bible is exactly what was intended by God to be contained in the Bible, for our instruction. He gave us an earthly institution as one of the ways for Him to convey what He wanted to convey to us, so yes, it relies on an earthly hierarchical set up and a process, but we aren't to see it as a mere human process. We are to see the Divine element of the Church. Its backing from Christ Himself.


And you have relied on the infallibility of human institutions when you have accepted the Bible and all that you know precisely because of the Bible (whether you admit that or not)


To make the claim, there is no need for religion. I have the Light of Christ. Is to undermine Christ who chose to establish a Church. How convenient to pretend you are above any organization of men when in reality your authority is the most fallible organization of men there can be " one man " you! Because that is what your religion boils down to. You claim to accept no earthly institution speaking for you, even though you already have by accepting the Bible handed to you by Christs Church and from then picking and choosing yourself how you think that Sacred Scripture ought to be interpreted, all under the guise of being guided by the Light of Christ! LOL! Doesnt work that way. There are no checks and balances in such a system. There is no way you can know you are getting it right. And the audacity to think you are receiving and be guided by the Light of Christ but if someone hears or believes something different, he is not. Wow! Thats what I call a self proclaimed religion right there.


I am afraid you are simply yet one more version of the 1000s of groups that split off from Christs Church and all started teaching their own thing. You have taken what youve wanted from His Church and then come up with a few of your own stuff. You have done exactly what He warned us not to do.


Again, careful analysis of Scripture, faith, faith in Christs words, historical evidence, and logic and reason all lead to the truth regarding Christs One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.


I think when examined one could see saying something like, I dont believe in organized religion or the church is simply whoever follows Christ lacks reason. Statements like these tend to attempt to communicate a persons belief in the spiritual but dislike for the traditional.


The Me & Jesus attitude " the belief that all I need is Jesus " that those who turn to a book or a church are letting things get in the way of their relationship with Christ is shortsighted and unfounded.


The irony of those who take such an approach don't realize most of their knowledge regarding God/Jesus comes from Scripture and the Church. They've already taken and incorporated the parts they want to accept and leave out the parts they don't. That's illogical my friends. Why believe any of it if not all?


The belief that things like Catholicism ought to be seen as a religion whereas, being directly led by Christ should be seen as the more virtuous route is inaccurate. It isnt seeing the Church for what it is. As if we aren't or can't be led by Christ via the Church. The person with such a view has a one-sided view regarding who and what the Church is.



Christ called the Church the pillar and foundation of truth. He never said, Your personal experience with me or that cool way you feel when you see the sunset is the foundation of truth. Feelings are awesome, but truth is more than feelings. We ought to be careful not to confuse the two.


Every era tries to create a new religion, something more befitting the age, but new religions are only suited to what is new. And what is new is soon old. "G. K. Chesterton

You know the story of St. Paul -- he believed the teachings of Jesus violated Mosaic Law and harassed, and even jailed, anyone who followed those teachings. And what happened? Christ made Himself known to then Saul saying, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" But Paul wasnt literally hurting Jesus " He was hurting Christs Church " His followers and yet the words are, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

To persecute the Church is to persecute Christ and there you have it from Christ Himself!

[tam]

[Replying to post 706 by RightReason]

May you have peace!


I urge anyone reading this or any other thing that people or ANY religions state - check the citations of the verses being used to support their statements. You might be surprised how often the citations do NOT support what the claim. Many people do not check. Or they check the first one (maybe two) - but do not look too closely. Instead of critically examining the text and asking themselves, 'does this actually support the claim or am I just seeing what I'm being told to see'.


That being said:

4. Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (see Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him "the first" (10:2). (Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.)

a - Just because someone's name is at the top of a list, does not mean that this person has been given authority over the other names in the list. No more than a person being names second means that they are second in charge.

b - Matthew does not call Peter 'the first'. Matthew is simply listing the apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee and his brother John; etc, etc.

The Mark and Luke passages do not even have 'first' in them at all.

5. Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else. In one example to the contrary, Galatians 2:9, where he is listed after James and before John, he is clearly pre-eminent in the entire context (see, for example, 1:18-19; 2:7-8).

I think the exceptions dispute the author's point. Oh, and directly after this particular exception, Paul goes on to report how he opposed Peter to his face because Peter 'stood to be condemned', by his own hypocrisy, which was leading others into hypocrisy as well.

That would be 2:11-14

6. Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, "Rock," solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:18).

He received a new name. Paul received a new name as well. That did not mean that he had authority over anyone else. Many others have received new names; and even Christ will reveal to us HIS new name at some point.

7. Likewise, Peter is regarded by Jesus as the chief shepherd after himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pt 5:2).

John 21:15-17 says no such thing. Peter is simply told what he is supposed to do (feed the sheep that belong to Christ), after being asked three times if he loved Christ. Peter keeps saying yes, and so now Christ said, then feed my sheep.


Acts 20:28 in no way suggests a subordinate role to Peter from any other apostle; but simply gives them all (including Peter) the exact same instruction. Peter just needed that emphasized to him.

The same is true of 1Peter 5:2

In fact in 1Peter 5:1, Peter states clearly that he is a FELLOW elder. Not a chief elder; not a chief shepherd; not a chief apostle. A FELLOW elder.

8. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his "faith fail not" (Lk 22:32).

Yeah, because Peter NEEDED it. See below.

9. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to "strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22:32).

You are the ones who have stood by Me in My trials. 29And I bestow on you a kingdom, just as My Father has bestowed on Me, 30so that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.


A - He speaks of them equally here; none over the others. Then adds:

Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you like wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith will not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.

B - Peter is the one who NEEDED that particular prayer (though you will note that Christ later prays for all of his apostles to His Father, to protect them from the evil one).
C - Simon STILL did not believe Christ, even when HE told them that they would ALL fall away and scatter and leave him alone.

Lord, said Peter, I am ready to go with You even to prison and to death.

But Jesus replied, I tell you, Peter, the rooster will not crow today until you have denied three times that you know Me.

Christ often emphasized things with Peter because Peter needed that emphasis.

Like this for instance:

After He had said this (to peter), He told him, Follow Me. Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them. He was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper to ask, Lord, who is going to betray You? When Peter saw him, he asked, Lord, what about him? Jesus answered, If I want him to remain until I return, what is that to you?"

Then Christ repeats his earlier command: You follow Me!

First Christ says to Peter, follow me. Peter immediately turns back and looks at the other disciple. He is corrected (what is it to you what I want someone else to do), and then Christ repeats his earlier command, "You follow ME."

10. Peter first confesses Christ's divinity (Mt 16:16).

Wrong.

The first person to make that confession is John the Baptist. (John 1: 32-34)

The first apostle to state and believe it was Andrew (Peter's brother).

The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ). (John 1:41)

Then, then very next day, Nathaniel made the confession:

Then Nathanael declared, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel." John 1:49

Peter was not the first to believe or declare any of this.

11. Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).

Peter was told he received this knowledge by revelation, because he did receive it by revelation. It is simply true. It is true of anyone who receives that knowledge by revelation.

It does not mean that one is given authority over another person.

And it is with that same faith that Peter showed (believing God about His Son) that Christ uses to build His Church upon the Rock (Himself).

12. Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.

I once again urge anyone reading to look UP the verses that are 'supposedly' supporting the statement. Because there is NOTHING in those verses that show the Jews would have regarded Peter as leader and spokesman of "Christianity".

Dishonest use of what is written. The RCC is not the only religion that does this, listing off a bunch of citations after a claim, well aware that most people aren't going to look too closely. Giving their claim and themselves an appearance of authority; of being supported by scripture. UNLESS one takes the time to look closely and apply some critical thinking.

13. Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15).

See above.

14. Jesus Christ uniquely associates himself and Peter in the miracle of the tribute money (Mt 17:24-27).

Um... the tax collectors approached peter and asked if his master paid the tax. That is why Peter is associated with this lesson.

More interesting is the fact that Christ PAID tax (his and his apostles). Even more interesting is what He had to say about who was exempt from paying taxes:

After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma temple tax came to Peter and asked, "Doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax?"

"Yes, he does," he replied.

When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. "What do you think, Simon?" he asked. "From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes--from their own sons or from others?"

"From others," Peter answered.

"Then the sons are exempt," Jesus declared.

15. Christ teaches from Peter's boat, and the miraculous catch of fish follows (Lk 5:1-11): perhaps a metaphor for the pope as a "fisher of men" (Mt 4:19).

The author is really fishing with this one.

**


But on top of that, this is what the verse(s) ACTUALLY states in Matthew 4:19:

As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, He saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen. Come, follow Me, [Jesus] said, and I will make you fishers of men.

Fishers, plural.

16. Peter was the first apostle to set out for, and enter, the empty tomb (Lk 24:12; Jn 20:6).

According to the disciple Christ loved (the author of the book commonly attributed to John), he and Peter both set out for the tomb together (based upon Mary's words - Mary being the first person Christ appeared to after His resurrection, though I am guessing that the author does not think this means Mary is FIRST over the other apostles). The other disciple reached the tomb and looked in first. He simply did not enter the tomb first. (John 20:1-8)

17. Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).

No, he is not. "Go and tell his disciples and Peter..."

The angel has not specified (or stated) that Peter is leader and representative of the apostles. (Matthew does not word this verse that way at all, making no specific mention of Peter)

Christ Himself does not specify Peter or any of the others when He says to Mary:

Do not cling to Me, Jesus said, For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go and tell My brothers, I am ascending to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God.

18. Peter leads the apostles in fishing (Jn 21:2-3,11). The "bark" (boat) of Peter has been regarded by Catholics as a figure of the Church, with Peter at the helm.

So Peter decided to go fishing and the others went with him, and that means Peter is in charge of them and the church?


How... interesting. But if the author is a fan of firsts - and thinks that being listed first in something or being the first do so something - proves that someone has been given authority over others... well:

From that very fishing event, it is the disciple Christ loves who is the FIRST to recognize that the man speaking to them on the shore was Christ. He then tells Peter who it is.

Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not recognize that it was Jesus. 5So He said to them, Children, do you have any fish? No, they answered. 6He told them, Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some. So they cast it there, and they were unable to haul it in because of the great number of fish. Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, It is the Lord!

19. Peter alone casts himself into the sea to come to Jesus (Jn 21:7).

Yes, he did. The rest bring the boat and the fish. But what does this say, truly, other than Peter wanted to rush to his side?

20. Peter's words are the first recorded and most important in the Upper Room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).

I am not sure how the author decides that these words are the most important.

But... I think we have established the being the first to do or say something does not mean that one has been made leader over others.

Or Mary would be first because she was the first to whom Christ revealed Himself after His resurrection. Or the disciple Christ loved would be first because He was the first to reach the tomb and the first to recognize the man on the shore as the Lord; or Andrew would be first because he was the first (with another unnamed disciple) to follow Christ, and because he was the first to state aloud (to his brother Peter) that He was the Christ. Or Nathanial would be first because he was the first to state (other than John the Baptist) that Christ was the Son of God, the King of Israel.


Peter was also the first (and only, at least according to what is written) to deny Christ after they were all scattered. I'm going to assume that this first does not make it into the list that is supposed to prove that Peter is FIRST among the apostles, or that Christ made him their leader.

24. Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11).

So Peter curses (anathema) Ananias and Sapphira. Despite the words of His Lord, "Bless and do not curse." "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." "Be merciful, and mercy will be shown you."

He had been given power from on high (as had all the other apostles), but he used this power to curse instead of to forgive or to show mercy?

This is supposed to be a good thing?

When did Christ ever do that? When did Christ ever put anyone to death? He never even put Judas to death, who betrayed Him. How could Judas have repented if Christ had put him to death?

How was Peter following His Lord in doing this?

Hopefully he recanted. Hopefully he even brought them BACK from the dead (just as Christ healed the ear of the servant that Peter wrongfully cut off); if indeed they (actually) died because of Peter's words. Hopefully he LEARNED from this and never did it again (I assume he must have, because there is no record of anyone else dropping dead because of his words). Hopefully everyone else learned (if anyone else needed this lesson) to guard their tongues and their hearts with great care.


Regardless, what He did was not what Christ did or taught us to do.

And just because Peter (or Paul or any of the apostles) did something, this does not make their words or actions right. Galatians 2:11-14

25. Peter's shadow works miracles (Acts 5:15).

Or people believed that it did. Regardless, all the apostles performed healing and miracles.

27. Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6).

And the Spirit sent Phillip to the Ethiopian Eunuch; and the Spirit sent Stephen to speak to people and the Spirit sent Paul to speak to people and the Spirit sent Ananias to Paul...

29. Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).

Does the author not realize that all Peter is doing here is repeating the vision that Christ gave Him? He is just sharing what was given to him TO share? Paul taught the same thing (as he received from Christ, not Peter).

30. Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison"Acts 12:1-17).

I guess the author missed Acts 5:17-20...

31. The whole Church (strongly implied) prays for Peter "without ceasing" when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5).

Why would they not have done so? For Peter or for anyone? How exactly does that mean Peter is leader of the church?

32. Peter presides over and opens the first council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterward accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).

He does not preside over them. He speaks to/with them, sharing again his revelation about gentiles (seeing as the council had to do with the gentiles)... then Paul (who already knew the things Peter was saying) and Barnabas also speak, sharing all that they have learned and seen and done; then James is the one who speaks and lays down those principles and of the letter to be sent to the Gentiles.

Iron sharpening iron.

37. Peter is often the central figure relating to Jesus in dramatic Gospel scenes such as walking on the water (Mt 14:28-32; Lk 5:1, Mk 10:28; Mt 17:24).

Peter is also often the central figure because his actions gives the most opportunity for discipline and correction. Such as when he sliced the ear off servant of one who was coming to arrest Christ.

(This is not to take away from him stepping out on the water in faith and trying, not at all. It just does not mean what the author is implying.)

46. Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for 15 days at the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.

Are you sure about that?


But when God, who set me apart from my mothers womb and called me by His grace, was pleased 16to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not rush to consult with flesh and blood, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to the apostles who came before me, but I went into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. Only after three years did I go up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas, and I stayed with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lords brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing to you is no lie.

I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

47. Peter acts, by strong implication, as the chief bishop/shepherd of the Church (1 Pt 5:1), since he exhorts all the other bishops, or "elders."

To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christs sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed:


There is not even a weak implication that he is the chief bishop or shepherd. In fact, later in the verse he specifically refers to Christ as Chief Shepherd:

Be shepherds of Gods flock that is under your care, watching over them"not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.

48. Peter interprets prophecy (2 Pt 1:16-21).

Come now. Does the author even read the verses they attached as support for a statement?

For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophets own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

49. Peter corrects those who misuse Paul's writings (2 Pt 3:15-16).

How does that even remotely show that Peter had somehow been given primacy? Paul corrected those who had been teaching falsely (about circumcision). Paul corrected Peter when Peter was doing wrong (and misleading people with the hypocrisy that he was showing).

The Scriptural evidence for the primacy of Peter is overwhelming.

It would seem not.


And of course there is still the absence of a single declaration from a single apostle or disciples stating that Peter was leader over the other apostles; that Peter was leader of the 'church'. Not one single statement from any of them that Peter was any of these things. And there were plenty of opportunities for this to be made clear. Such as when Paul was rebuking people for following and boasting in men - including Peter and himself and apollos. Paul could have taken this moment to state that Peter was the leader, but he said NOTHING to that effect.


But there are plenty of statements that Christ is the leader; the chief shepherd; the master; the head and foundation of His Church.



May anyone who wishes them be given ears to hear; and may anyone who thirsts, "Come! Take the free gift of the water of Life."


Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[RightReason]

[Replying to tam]

I urge anyone reading this or any other thing that people or ANY religions state - check the citations of the verses being used to support their statements. You might be surprised how often the citations do NOT support what the claim. Many people do not check. Or they check the first one (maybe two) - but do not look too closely. Instead of critically examining the text and asking themselves, 'does this actually support the claim or am I just seeing what I'm being told to see'.

I urge this as well. I know you want to downplay the significance of Peter, but if one reads Scripture as a whole, he can see the evidence is there to support Peter as leader. I dont really want to take the time to go item by item, but I do encourage everyone to read the Scripture passage on their own and make up their own mind.

I will make a couple of quick comments.

You said the comment that Peter was the first to confesses Christ's divinity was wrong, but I encourage anyone right now to type in Google, Who was the first to confess Christs divinity? and see what comes up.

And heres what Wikipedia has to say . . .

In the same passage Jesus also selects Peter as the leader of the Apostles, and states: "Upon this rock I will build my church". Most Christian denominations agree that the statement applies to Peter, but they diverge on their interpretations of what happens after Peter.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession_of_Peter


And I notice although you criticize the Catholic Church for relying on the interpretations of men your version of faith simply relies on your own personal interpretation. You must realize that. And yet in Scripture itself we see Christ equate persecution of His Church with the persecution of Him. So, sounds like Christ backs His Church.

[tam]

Peace to you!

[Replying to tam]

I urge anyone reading this or any other thing that people or ANY religions state - check the citations of the verses being used to support their statements. You might be surprised how often the citations do NOT support what the claim. Many people do not check. Or they check the first one (maybe two) - but do not look too closely. Instead of critically examining the text and asking themselves, 'does this actually support the claim or am I just seeing what I'm being told to see'.

I urge this as well.

Did you do that with the article you posted? If you did, did you not notice that the verses did not support the claim in many of those points?

I know you want to downplay the significance of Peter,

It only seems like I am 'downplaying' the significance of Peter, because your religion has up-played the significance of Peter.

but if one reads Scripture as a whole, he can see the evidence is there to support Peter as leader.

JW's state something similar: that if one reads scripture as a whole, then one can see the evidence to support their doctrines. Unfortunately, this 'read scripture as a whole' most often supports unscriptural doctrines - worse than that, doctrines that are not in line with what Christ taught.

Christ did not teach that one apostle would be leader over the other apostles; Christ did not teach that when those apostles died, others would replace them as that authority; Christ did not teach that there are two hopes for Christians (earthly verses heavenly); Christ did not teach the trinity; Christ did not teach that He was the archangel Michael.

In all of the above cases, the 'if you read scripture as a whole' justification is applied.

But who is listening to Christ?

In any case, many verses from your article do not support the individual claims made by the author. So if the 'whole' is made up of falsehoods, how can the whole be true?

I dont really want to take the time to go item by item,

Of course not. It is much easier to copy/paste or post links.

But have you ever heard the saying, 'the devil is in the details'?


This is why I respond to each thing that you claim. I don't care if someone posts walls of text. I don't care if someone says , here are '40' reasons from the bible that Peter is leader. Because upon examination, those 40 reasons are all for show.

I did not need to test the items on that list for my own sake. I know what my Lord has taught me on this matter, and I know His words are true. I tested the items on that list to demonstrate for you (and anyone else reading).

I will make a couple of quick comments.

You said the comment that Peter was the first to confesses Christ's divinity was wrong, but I encourage anyone right now to type in Google, Who was the first to confess Christs divinity? and see what comes up.

Well... if google says so...

Never mind what the disciple Christ loved had to say on the matter in the book (attributed to) John.

And heres what Wikipedia has to say . . .

In the same passage Jesus also selects Peter as the leader of the Apostles, and states: "Upon this rock I will build my church". Most Christian denominations agree that the statement applies to Peter, but they diverge on their interpretations of what happens after Peter.

From your same wiki page:

Various Christian denominations interpret Matthew 16:18 in different ways. Although most denominations agree that the statement applies to Peter, they diverge on their interpretations of what happens after Peter.[5]

In the Roman Catholic Church, Jesus' words, "upon this rock I will build my church" are interpreted as the foundation of the doctrine of the papacy, whereby the Church of Christ is founded upon Peter and his successors, the Bishops of Rome.[17] Jesus' next statement, "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." are interpreted as the foundation of the doctrine of papal infallibility.[18]

Some Protestants believe that the verse states that Peter was the foundation stone of the Church, but do not accept that it applies to the continuous succession of popes, as the Bishops of Rome. The statement "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" is usually taken to mean that the Church will never become extinct.[5][18] Some Protestant evangelical groups adhere to the interpretation that it is Peter's "confession" itself that is "the rock on which will be built the Church of Jesus", i.e. The church will be built on Jesus alone as the foundation stone of his church. This interpretation usually uses the argument of the difference between petros and petra in Greek ("You are Peter [petros] and on this rock [petra] I will build my church.")

The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches also reject the succession of popes and see Jesus' words, "whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" as bestowing first upon Peter what was later bestowed upon all of the Apostles collectively. The Orthodox believe in the infallibility of the Church as a whole, but that any individual, regardless of their position can be subject to error.[5]

Ecumenical meetings among different denominations have taken place regarding these interpretations, but no final agreement has emerged.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession_of_Peter

Wiki merely reports upon what people believe.


(Wiki also did not mention anything from the book (attributed to) John, where it is reported that John the Baptist, Andrew, and Nathaniel, all stated and knew who Christ was before Peter made his confession. That wiki page dealt only with the synoptics.)

And I notice although you criticize the Catholic Church for relying on the interpretations of men your version of faith simply relies on your own personal interpretation.

You cannot state what my faith relies upon, RR. You can state what your faith relies upon (a visible organization and men), but you do not know my faith. My faith relies upon Christ.

How can anyone who professes to be Christian find that be incomprehensible? Where is their faith in HIM?

And yet in Scripture itself we see Christ equate persecution of His Church with the persecution of Him. So, sounds like Christ backs His Church.

He does.

But that Church is not the RCC (or the WTS or any of the other sects in Christendom).


His Church is His Body(His Bride) made of many members (people); of whom HE is their Head, their Master, their King, their Lord, their Teacher, their Leader; their Shepherd; their cornerstone and foundation.




May any who wish them be given ears to hear, and may any who thirst, "Come! Take the free gift of the water (holy spirit) of LIFE!"


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 709 by tam]

Did you do that with the article you posted? If you did, did you not notice that the verses did not support the claim in many of those points?

I believe the verses I posted did support all the claims I posted they did. And I think a proper reading of Scripture would make that same conclusion. But the fact that you actually read those same Scripture passages and come to a different conclusion just proves everything I have been saying from the beginning and points out the NECESSITY in Christ establishing One, Authoritative Church to know we are getting it right!!!

It only seems like I am 'downplaying' the significance of Peter, because your religion has up-played the significance of Peter.

The majority of Christendom recognized Peter as leader. In fact, the idea that Christ's Church was built on Peter's confession is actually one of those new reformed theological views that became necessary to justify breaking off from Christ's Church. Yes, many have since split off from Christ's Church, but you will still find much of Protestantism agreeing that Christ did choose Peter as leader. Peter was singled out and these words spoken, And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

I did not need to test the items on that list for my own sake. I know what my Lord has taught me on this matter, and I know His words are true. I tested the items on that list to demonstrate for you (and anyone else reading).

ha, ha, ha . . . You know what your Lord has taught you, huh? Says every Christian I've ever met and yet many of them believe different things. And they too claim to have "tested" LOL! What's a Christian gal to do?

You cannot state what my faith relies upon, RR. Yyou can state what your faith relies upon (a visible organization and men), but you do notknow my faith. My faith relies upon Christ.

Ahhhhh . . . but my faith relies upon Christ, as I have said many times as well. So only you can state what your faith relies on? So again, isn't that more based on "the Light of Tammy"? How convenient. And how can one then test what you state? Shall we just take your word for it? I prefer to listen to what Christ and His Church have to say, as that is what we have been instructed to do.