The complete paganism of the Tri-quetra (triquetra), and it's anti-Christian purpose

[ReChoired]

Are you saying the 1st part a not true?

Are you implying that I said that, or implying that I am implying that? If so, where in my replies please. As some advice, if you are going to ask a question, perhaps you could make it less accusatory and not start with a negative.

God's word is truth.

Yes, the church (the people, elders, deacons, etc) are all subject to Christ.

 

[ReChoired]

Perhaps we could extend the current discussion to other pagan relics of ancient Rome adopted by the church and revered to this day?

Yes, as the OP writer, you have my fullest agreement. Go nuts.

 

[ReChoired]

And ... you write an OP calling its banner logo not representative of Christ

It isn't, as demonstrated in the OP, and subsequent posts. It is representative of pagan ideologies, as also shown. Read in all of scripture, Jesus not once condoned such 'misrepresentation' of JEHOVAH Elohiym. God the Father is represented not by such a flaccid, powerless and impotent concept as one 'portion' (an arc) of the triquetra, neither in by its complete 'image', but is represented best by the Son Himself (an actual Person/Being), the "express image" of the Father (an actual Person/Being) as scripture says.

 

[Brakelite]

Yes, as the OP writer, you have my fullest agreement. Go nuts.

Lol

 

[Brakelite]

Yes, as the OP writer, you have my fullest agreement. Go nuts.

Oh dear. Where to begin. Evidence of pagan Rome in the church? One could throw a rock at random in the general direction of Italy and hit the jackpot. And then discover that Protestantism inherited it and defend and cleave to it using every possible tactic imaginable to justify their position. Wasn't it the Catholic Church which states that the Trinity (their version) is the central doctrine of Catholic faith, and every other doctrine, dogma and Creed stems from that central Trinity hub? So if their Trinity is wrong, what does that say for all the others? And if their Trinity was agreed to only on the approval of the state emperor, what else did the church receive at his hand and his approval in exchange for civil support and arms? They would claim that Christianity conquered paganism hence the cross on the top of the obelisk in St Peter's square. Thing is, it's impossible to look at that cross without noticing the obelisk. Oh, and the o occult solar patterns emanating from it.




Pagan sun wheels have been part and parcel of sun worship for 1000s of years, and still hold an affectionate place within paganism. Oh and lookie here....

 

[ReChoired]

Evidence of pagan Rome in the church?

How about the "red campagines" of the Roman Emperor that some particular puffed up persons who wear funny hats on occasion fashion about.

[1.] “...But there are others which reveal him to us in another aspect, and which have drifted down through another channel. No saying of ecclesiastical history is more pregnant than that in which Hobbes declares that "the Pope is the ghost of the deceased Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof." This is the true original basis of his dignity and power, and it appears even in the minutest details. If he were to be regarded only as the successor of St. Peter, his chief original seat would, of course, be in the Basilica of St. Peter, over the Apostle's grave. But this is not the case. …”

*[“...But there are others [context: usages of titles/relics of antiquity]...”]

“... The Pope's proper see and Cathedral is the Basilica of St. John " in the Lateran "—that is, in the Lateran palace which was the real and only bequest of Constantine to the Roman Bishop. It had been the palace of the Lateran family. From them it passed to the Imperial dynasty. In it the Empress Fausta, wife of Constantine, usually lived. In it, after Constantine's departure to Constantinople, the Roman Bishop dwelt as a great Roman noble. In it accordingly is the true Pontifical throne, on the platform of which are written the words Hoec est papalis sedes et pontificalis. Over its front is inscribed the decree, Papal and Imperial, declaring it to be the mother and mistress of all churches. In it he takes possession of the See of Rome, and of the government of the Pontifical States. Although the story of Constantine's abdication to Pope Sylvester is one of the fables of the Papacy, yet it has in it this truth—that by the retirement of the Emperors to the East, they left Rome without a head, and that vacant place was naturally and imperceptibly filled by the chief of the rising community. To him the splendor and the attributes, which properly belonged to the Emperor, were unconsciously transferred.

Here, as in the case of ecclesiastical usages, we trace it in the small details which have lingered in him when they have perished elsewhere. The chair of state, the sella gestatoria, in which the Pope is borne aloft, is the ancient palanquin of the Roman nobles, and, of course, of the Roman Princes. The red slippers which he wears are the red shoes, campagines, of the Roman Emperor. ...”,

[2.] “...the Pope is the ghost of the deceased Roman Empire. ...” [Christian Institutions [Essays On Ecclesiastical Subjects]; Arthur Penrhyn Stanley [aka: “STANLEY'S HISTORY”], D.D.; Dean of Westminster; New York, Harper & Brothers, Franklin Square, 1881; [1.] pg 188-189, [2.] pg 201; *notation added for clarification] - http://ia600303.us.archive.org/13/items/christianinst00stan/christianinst00stan.pdf

https://external-content.duckduckgo...k.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/purple-6.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-...1Sk0XGVrz_wgCLcBGAsYHQ/w640-h450/1963329.jpeg

https://external-content.duckduckgo.../rS4u6dl7Z-k/s400/pope_benedict_in_prada2.jpg
https://external-content.duckduckgo.../rS4u6dl7Z-k/s400/pope_benedict_in_prada2.jpg

For many more images, see - red shoes pope purple at DuckDuckGo​

 

[Brakelite]

How about the "red campagines" of the Roman Emperor that some particular puffed up persons who wear funny hats on occasion fashion about.

[1.] “...But there are others which reveal him to us in another aspect, and which have drifted down through another channel. No saying of ecclesiastical history is more pregnant than that in which Hobbes declares that "the Pope is the ghost of the deceased Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof." This is the true original basis of his dignity and power, and it appears even in the minutest details. If he were to be regarded only as the successor of St. Peter, his chief original seat would, of course, be in the Basilica of St. Peter, over the Apostle's grave. But this is not the case. …”

*[“...But there are others [context: usages of titles/relics of antiquity]...”]

“... The Pope's proper see and Cathedral is the Basilica of St. John " in the Lateran "—that is, in the Lateran palace which was the real and only bequest of Constantine to the Roman Bishop. It had been the palace of the Lateran family. From them it passed to the Imperial dynasty. In it the Empress Fausta, wife of Constantine, usually lived. In it, after Constantine's departure to Constantinople, the Roman Bishop dwelt as a great Roman noble. In it accordingly is the true Pontifical throne, on the platform of which are written the words Hoec est papalis sedes et pontificalis. Over its front is inscribed the decree, Papal and Imperial, declaring it to be the mother and mistress of all churches. In it he takes possession of the See of Rome, and of the government of the Pontifical States. Although the story of Constantine's abdication to Pope Sylvester is one of the fables of the Papacy, yet it has in it this truth—that by the retirement of the Emperors to the East, they left Rome without a head, and that vacant place was naturally and imperceptibly filled by the chief of the rising community. To him the splendor and the attributes, which properly belonged to the Emperor, were unconsciously transferred.

Here, as in the case of ecclesiastical usages, we trace it in the small details which have lingered in him when they have perished elsewhere. The chair of state, the sella gestatoria, in which the Pope is borne aloft, is the ancient palanquin of the Roman nobles, and, of course, of the Roman Princes. The red slippers which he wears are the red shoes, campagines, of the Roman Emperor. ...”,

[2.] “...the Pope is the ghost of the deceased Roman Empire. ...” [Christian Institutions [Essays On Ecclesiastical Subjects]; Arthur Penrhyn Stanley [aka: “STANLEY'S HISTORY”], D.D.; Dean of Westminster; New York, Harper & Brothers, Franklin Square, 1881; [1.] pg 188-189, [2.] pg 201; *notation added for clarification] - http://ia600303.us.archive.org/13/items/christianinst00stan/christianinst00stan.pdf

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https://hhshawktalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/purple-6.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-...1Sk0XGVrz_wgCLcBGAsYHQ/w640-h450/1963329.jpeg

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_oTwEGiup_Wo/SAuMrVyfh-I/AAAAAAAACEQ/rS4u6dl7Z-k/s400/pope_benedict_in_prada2.jpg

For many more images, see - red shoes pope purple at DuckDuckGo​

Well well well. We learn something every day. Who woulda thunk. I'll never look at a pair of red slippers the same again.

 

[ReChoired]

Well well well. We learn something every day. Who woulda thunk. I'll never look at a pair of red slippers the same again.

Oh, there is one more thing, since it is anti-christos (vicarius christi), reconsider this verse:

Psa_68:23 That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same.

The papal "blood" red shoe, means victory over his enemies (at least he thinks).

 

[theefaith]

Are you implying that I said that, or implying that I am implying that? If so, where in my replies please. As some advice, if you are going to ask a question, perhaps you could make it less accusatory and not start with a negative.

God's word is truth.

Yes, the church (the people, elders, deacons, etc) are all subject to Christ.

Not accusing you just clarifying

 

[ReChoired]

Not accusing you just clarifying

I was just 'erased' from "Jesus Talk" forums. Why? For simply being an Seventh-day Adventist. My heart breaks for them. The gross darkness they are in.

 

[theefaith]

I was just 'erased' from "Jesus Talk" forums. Why? For simply being an Seventh-day Adventist. My heart breaks for them. The gross darkness they are in.

no one should be banned for sharing you’re faith

 

[ReChoired]

no one should be banned for sharing you’re faith

Yes ( ), well, I have, over and over again. I have been banned, from Seventh-day Adventist forums (now called 'Adventistan', and others several times) for sharing material that is in Seventh-day Adventist literature, written by sister White.

Why do I share this with you? I hope that you might understand a little, of what it is really like to have your love turned away, again and again and again. To have the truth you share spurned, mocked, deleted over and over again. I have had hundreds and thousands (no exaggeration) of pages (posts) of material shared (from concern, love of the truth, and especially for those I am sharing with) simply deleted, along with whole accounts and everything that was posted on those accounts. Do you really understand to know what it is like, to be called fanatic by one's own people (brothers and sisters), let alone by those that know 'nothing', or only what is heard or read by so called 'cult' expert sites?

I have experienced over and over again, things as Tyndale, and Huss experienced, in the 'burning' (by deletion) of their work, and even in the animosity to burn me if they could reach me. I have had to start over hundreds of times. I have wept, and cried, and sobbed, and been broken to the point that sometimes, it is simply numbing, and my being is simply tired. I have been like Jeremiah in the pit of despair, a weeping messenger to his own people, up to my neck in mire, rejected, alone and pulled out by God's grace by some other small and humble persons (who were truly Christian).

I have even been rejected from the original Seventh-day Adventist church I was baptized in. Why? For teaching the truth from scripture, and the very words of the messenger of the Lord, and from history. I warned of wolves in sheep's clothing on numerous occasions, and it fell on deaf ears among the pastors on numerous occasions, and yet I was the one followed by deacons and elders, and held in numerous 'pastor's meetings', sometimes up to 3-4 pastors present trying to convince me of my 'wrong-doing', my 'heresies', my 'attitude'. What I share here (on this forum), and everywhere has never changed, only deepened in what is shared. I had to leave that original place, simply because I was no longer allowed to teach, share there and was under constant watch and guard. While there were small groups of persons there that did exist at the original place that was teaching heresy, like flat-earth, lunar sabbaths, allah = Jehovah (in other words syncretism) and other dangerous things, I always stood and taught against all those things, from scripture and the SoP/ToJ. Yet, I was counted among them.

I do not know if you understand what it is like to have your own blood relative family not understand, or treat you differently simply because they are no longer of the faith that I once was (Roman Catholic, whom my entire family from immediate to cousins, etc). Even when I was baptized (full immersion) into the Seventh-day Adventist movement, I did so without telling my parents, who, after learning 'freaked' for some time. They, at least, have softened over time, and so have I (for I was angry with them for some time, but it was misplaced, and I know direct that true anger to satan and his lies).

I have been door to door in whole cities, sharing material that was bought and paid for out of pocket (really Jesus already paid for all of it), just so people might know salvation in Christ Jesus, know what it is to be redeemed. Do you know what it is like to have doors closed on you over and over again. To be mocked at to the face? To be told that the police will be called if I do not leave their doorstep immediately? Have you ever been verbally assaulted to the face by a complete stranger at a door, and to take insult and injury of heart, so that your adrenaline runs? I have been bullied my whole life, so I know what it is like.

Even after 'landing' in another Seventh-day Adventist church (where a good friend, or so I thought once, not so sure now), one of another nationality, I was an outsider there (though they were outwardly kind most of the time), though I was allowed to teach and share there for a little while. Yet, even members there, after a change of the 'guard' (pastor, leadership) there, things began to change. I ended up where I am now, because all doors there closed as well. Yet, when I came to where I am in this place, the family, whom I thought I knew and counted as a friend, the father turned on me, and literally accused me of stealing (matters of tithing) from God, when I had no income (or increase) to tithe on, though I always gave offering even of the last dollars I had left, and whenever I earned any money (I tithed) from odd jobs for people, expected that I give some of it to them (though I was originally told I was to live there for free and not worry about that). Please understand. I was homeless now (except for their mercy), jobless (except for always being in service to God), down to my last dollars in savings (for emergency use only), all retirement money (which I had to pull, after no longer serving at AFmin, resigning in protest, after being watched there, and having 'leadership' meetings just like the pastor meetings at the church, really not being wanted there any more by some) had been spent on paying rent. I ended up being locked out of the house one night (10:30 at night), after returning late from helping a group of women get ready to do an evangelistic series (where the male leadership would lead out, but the sisters share the message), and had to call a person I barely knew here to come give me a ride back to the place I was helping at, and sleep there with only the clothes on my back. I went back, and ended up giving most of the last dollars I had to them in an offer of peace, and left from there, and I was the one treated as though I had done the wrong for leaving, for it made them 'look bad' to others.

Do you understand theefaith? Can you enter into just a little of my heart and see what is there for you, for all on this forum? I do not do it out of pride, or ego, or money, or praise, or prestige, or anything other than love of the truth, love for you and them (I do my best to research, to study, to learn to obtain, not for me, but for you and others). So when I share with you, please at least consider (even if you disagree, for whatever reason), that what I share with you, took time, took concern, took patience, took persistence, took love, took sacrifice at such a cost to bring. I only want to share what I have been given to you, freely. It is not enough that I have been given precious things from God. Without sharing it, it is as if it is a waste on me. I cry sometimes because I feel what use is it to have all this treasure, precious things of God (whom I know have personally, by the Holy Spirit shared with me simply because God loves me), and no one to experience it with, to share with, to talk about with.

I have not told you the half, though I have told you the truth.

What is the purpose of this thread? Truth, as always, in love.

People think I hate catholics, baptists, lds, jw, muslims, even Seventh-day Adventists, etc. Nothing could be further from the truth. I want all to have what I have been given of God in answer to prayer on my knees in tears, for it is precious, and it will bless. I don't know about you, but I am tired of all the lies of the devil in this world. I am tired of his compromises. I am tired of his temptations. I am tired of his attempted bribes. I am tired of his insinuations. But all those things are only what I feel, which is nothing compared to what God feels. How much more God, when he looks down and sees everything at once, and experiences all the pain and heartache and misery together for all of humanity, and must wait a little longer until the plan is completed.

 

[theefaith]

Yes ( ), well, I have, over and over again. I have been banned, from Seventh-day Adventist forums (now called 'Adventistan', and others several times) for sharing material that is in Seventh-day Adventist literature, written by sister White.

Why do I share this with you? I hope that you might understand a little, of what it is really like to have your love turned away, again and again and again. To have the truth you share spurned, mocked, deleted over and over again. I have had hundreds and thousands (no exaggeration) of pages (posts) of material shared (from concern, love of the truth, and especially for those I am sharing with) simply deleted, along with whole accounts and everything that was posted on those accounts. Do you really understand to know what it is like, to be called fanatic by one's own people (brothers and sisters), let alone by those that know 'nothing', or only what is heard or read by so called 'cult' expert sites?

I have experienced over and over again, things as Tyndale, and Huss experienced, in the 'burning' (by deletion) of their work, and even in the animosity to burn me if they could reach me. I have had to start over hundreds of times. I have wept, and cried, and sobbed, and been broken to the point that sometimes, it is simply numbing, and my being is simply tired. I have been like Jeremiah in the pit of despair, a weeping messenger to his own people, up to my neck in mire, rejected, alone and pulled out by God's grace by some other small and humble persons (who were truly Christian).

I have even been rejected from the original Seventh-day Adventist church I was baptized in. Why? For teaching the truth from scripture, and the very words of the messenger of the Lord, and from history. I warned of wolves in sheep's clothing on numerous occasions, and it fell on deaf ears among the pastors on numerous occasions, and yet I was the one followed by deacons and elders, and held in numerous 'pastor's meetings', sometimes up to 3-4 pastors present trying to convince me of my 'wrong-doing', my 'heresies', my 'attitude'. What I share here (on this forum), and everywhere has never changed, only deepened in what is shared. I had to leave that original place, simply because I was no longer allowed to teach, share there and was under constant watch and guard. While there were small groups of persons there that did exist at the original place that was teaching heresy, like flat-earth, lunar sabbaths, allah = Jehovah (in other words syncretism) and other dangerous things, I always stood and taught against all those things, from scripture and the SoP/ToJ. Yet, I was counted among them.

I do not know if you understand what it is like to have your own blood relative family not understand, or treat you differently simply because they are no longer of the faith that I once was (Roman Catholic, whom my entire family from immediate to cousins, etc). Even when I was baptized (full immersion) into the Seventh-day Adventist movement, I did so without telling my parents, who, after learning 'freaked' for some time. They, at least, have softened over time, and so have I (for I was angry with them for some time, but it was misplaced, and I know direct that true anger to satan and his lies).

I have been door to door in whole cities, sharing material that was bought and paid for out of pocket (really Jesus already paid for all of it), just so people might know salvation in Christ Jesus, know what it is to be redeemed. Do you know what it is like to have doors closed on you over and over again. To be mocked at to the face? To be told that the police will be called if I do not leave their doorstep immediately? Have you ever been verbally assaulted to the face by a complete stranger at a door, and to take insult and injury of heart, so that your adrenaline runs? I have been bullied my whole life, so I know what it is like.

Even after 'landing' in another Seventh-day Adventist church (where a good friend, or so I thought once, not so sure now), one of another nationality, I was an outsider there (though they were outwardly kind most of the time), though I was allowed to teach and share there for a little while. Yet, even members there, after a change of the 'guard' (pastor, leadership) there, things began to change. I ended up where I am now, because all doors there closed as well. Yet, when I came to where I am in this place, the family, whom I thought I knew and counted as a friend, the father turned on me, and literally accused me of stealing (matters of tithing) from God, when I had no income (or increase) to tithe on, though I always gave offering even of the last dollars I had left, and whenever I earned any money (I tithed) from odd jobs for people, expected that I give some of it to them (though I was originally told I was to live there for free and not worry about that). Please understand. I was homeless now (except for their mercy), jobless (except for always being in service to God), down to my last dollars in savings (for emergency use only), all retirement money (which I had to pull, after no longer serving at AFmin, resigning in protest, after being watched there, and having 'leadership' meetings just like the pastor meetings at the church, really not being wanted there any more by some) had been spent on paying rent. I ended up being locked out of the house one night (10:30 at night), after returning late from helping a group of women get ready to do an evangelistic series (where the male leadership would lead out, but the sisters share the message), and had to call a person I barely knew here to come give me a ride back to the place I was helping at, and sleep there with only the clothes on my back. I went back, and ended up giving most of the last dollars I had to them in an offer of peace, and left from there, and I was the one treated as though I had done the wrong for leaving, for it made them 'look bad' to others.

Do you understand theefaith? Can you enter into just a little of my heart and see what is there for you, for all on this forum? I do not do it out of pride, or ego, or money, or praise, or prestige, or anything other than love of the truth, love for you and them (I do my best to research, to study, to learn to obtain, not for me, but for you and others). So when I share with you, please at least consider (even if you disagree, for whatever reason), that what I share with you, took time, took concern, took patience, took persistence, took love, took sacrifice at such a cost to bring. I only want to share what I have been given to you, freely. It is not enough that I have been given precious things from God. Without sharing it, it is as if it is a waste on me. I cry sometimes because I feel what use is it to have all this treasure, precious things of God (whom I know have personally, by the Holy Spirit shared with me simply because God loves me), and no one to experience it with, to share with, to talk about with.

I have not told you the half, though I have told you the truth.

What is the purpose of this thread? Truth, as always, in love.

People think I hate catholics, baptists, lds, jw, muslims, even Seventh-day Adventists, etc. Nothing could be further from the truth. I want all to have what I have been given of God in answer to prayer on my knees in tears, for it is precious, and it will bless. I don't know about you, but I am tired of all the lies of the devil in this world. I am tired of his compromises. I am tired of his temptations. I am tired of his attempted bribes. I am tired of his insinuations. But all those things are only what I feel, which is nothing compared to what God feels. How much more God, when he looks down and sees everything at once, and experiences all the pain and heartache and misery together for all of humanity, and must wait a little longer until the plan is completed.

I understand
I’ve been there too so I appreciate all your efforts

count it all joy

 

[theefaith]

Oh my God, I believe, adore, hope, and love Thee, I implore Thy pardon and mercy for those who do not believe, adore, hope, and love Thee!

 

[theefaith]

May the most holy, most sacred, most adorable, most incomprehensible and unutterable Name of God be always praised, blessed, loved, adored and glorified in Heaven, on earth, by all the creatures of God, Amen.

and admirable is the holy name of God!

blessed be the name Jesus! Our Savior!

 

[ReChoired]

The 'rock' isn't Peter, as the blasphemous Roman Catholic church teaches. It's the word of God, so says Jesus Himself in the same Gospel:
...

@theefaith

The 'rock' of Matthew 16:18 to which Jesus refers is not "Peter", by the context

[1] - The complete paganism of the Tri-quetra (triquetra), and it's anti-Christian purpose

[2] - The complete paganism of the Tri-quetra (triquetra), and it's anti-Christian purpose

Now, consider the majority of the 'ecf' taught that Peter is not the 'rock' of Matthew 16:18.

A study, done by a Roman Catholic, Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick:

"... which was to be delivered to Vatican I (1870). However, it was never delivered, but it was published later, along with other insights.[5] He points out the 5 interpretations, which Fathers of antiquity held to: 1) Peter as the Rock, 17 Fathers, 2) all the apostles, 8 Fathers, 3) that the church was built on the faith that Peter confessed, 44 Fathers, including the most important Fathers, 4) Jesus as the Rock, 16 Fathers, and 5) all Christians were the living stones, held by very few Fathers. Kenrick rightfully concludes:

“If we are bound to follow the majority of the Fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that the rock should be understood as the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith.”

Thus, only 20% of the Fathers held to Rome’s now canonized “infallible” “Petrine Rock” interpretation of Matthew 16:18. That is far from being the norm of the early church. As Roman Catholic apologist, H. Burn-Murdock admits: “None of the writings of the first two centuries describe St. Peter as a bishop of Rome.”[6] In fact, no one before Callistus (A.D. 223) used Matthew 16:18 to support the primacy of the Roman bishop (i.e., “Pope” as Rome call it)—no one.

The church historian, Eusebius of Caesarea (A.D. 263-339), sees the “rock” as Christ. He links this interpretation with the parallel rock and foundation statements of 1 Corinthians 3:11 and 10:4. Sharing this view (Christ as the Rock) was Augustine. In fact, he commented more on Matthew 16:18 than any other church Father. It is true that at the beginning of his ministry, he saw Peter as the Rock. However, he changed his position throughout the balance of his ministry in which he adopted the view that the Rock was not Peter, but either Christ or Peter’s confession, which pointed to the Person of Christ:

Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (Sermons, XI, Sermon 229, 327).

What has been demonstrated over and over is that Roman Catholics do not engage in critical exegesis when interpreting Scripture, nor do they objectively examine the patristic (church Fathers) record, not because Catholics lack the ability, but because they do not need to—for Rome has already provided the “infallible” interpretation for them. Thus, for the Catholic: Rome’s interpretations are correct, because Rome says they are.

However, the following points seriously challenge Rome’s position of the so-called Primacy of Peter and him being the first Pope of Rome:

1) There is no biblical evidence indicating that Peter had supremacy over all the other apostles.

2) Peter never once considered that he was Pope, Pontiff; Vicar of Christ, Holy Father, or Head of the whole Christian Church, nor did any of the other apostles make such as claim.

3) Peter outwardly denied the Lord (out of fear) and Peter was rebuked by the Apostle Paul for being prejudice against the Gentiles (cf. Gal. 2:11-12).

4) At the first church council in Jerusalem (not Rome), it was James and not Peter who was the leading speaker and decision maker, for James authoritatively declared: “It is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles. . . .” (Acts 15:19). Moreover, the letter that was sent out regarding the judgment never mentions Peter (cf. v. 23).

5) At the end of Romans, Paul sends his greetings to at least 26 people—but Peter is not even mentioned! Why? Surely, if Peter had “recognized supremacy” over Rome and all the apostles, we would expect Paul to have greeted him first!

6) Peter was a married man, unlike the Roman Popes (cf, Matt. 8:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).

These are but a few of the many valid objections to Rome’s position. Simply, there is no place in the NT where Peter acted as “Pope,” or as the “supreme leader” or “head” of the apostles and the church. Quite the opposite is true. Paul says that the Christian church has “been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone” (Eph. 2:20). The Christian confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God is the very ROCK of faith upon which the Christian church has been built—and not upon the man Peter. ..." - Catholicism and the Primacy of the Apostle Peter (Matt. 16:18), Department of Christian Defense​

This was also mentioned by the Standish brothers:

".. the rule of biblical interpretation imposed upon us [by the Roman Catholic Church] is this: that the Scriptures are not to be interpreted contrary to the unanimous consent of the [early Christian] fathers. It is doubtful whether any instance of that unanimous consent is to be found. - Archbishop Kenrick (Peter Richard, 1806-1986), Inside View, 107

The archbishop stated that the early Christian fathers held diverse views upon the meaning of Matthew 16:18 -- The Rock (Ibid., 107-109). Here are some of the views of early Christians upon the meaning of this text:

1. The church was built upon Peter - Kenrick identified seventeen fathers including Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Hillary, Cyril of Alexandria, Pope Leo the Great and Augustine who held this view.

2. All the apostles -- eight fathers including Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine and Theodoric.

3. The faith which Peter professed -- forty-four fathers, iuncluding Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Ambrose, Pope Leo the Great, Augustine.

4. Christ -- sixteen fathers. ..." - The Rapture and Antichrist, by Russel R. Standish, Colin D Standish, page 233 - The Rapture and the Antichrist​

 

[theefaith]

Explain these please

why even mention peter?
Eph 2:20 say on the apostles?
Etc.
Christ founded the church on Peter!
And the apostles!
Matt 16:18 eph 2:20 Jn 20:21-23

18 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.

You CANNOT give the keys (jurisdictional authority) to a confession but to a person! Peter
Vs 19 I give unto thee (Peter) thou shalt bind (Peter) thou shalt loose (Peter)

Only the one true church founded by Christ on Peter and the apostles and their successors and those members of Christ by faith and baptism United with them, the communion of the saints
Jn 16:10 matt 16:18 18:18 Jn 20:21-23
Jn 10:16

Ephesians 5:32
This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church

1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

The office of apostle that has the three fold office, to teach: to govern the church: and to sanctify by the sacraments or sacred oaths (promises) of the father! Acts 2:38-39 with ez 36:25-27 Heb 8:6

Keys of authority! And power to bind and loose! Matt 16:18 and Matt 18:18

Moral authority:
(Teaching)
Necessity of being taught by Christ:
Two edge sword: defining truth and condemning errors, and Interpreting scripture.

Jurisdictional authority:
(Governing / administering)
Necessity of Peter and the apostles and their successors to govern the holy church.

Spiritual authority:
(Life of Grace)
Sanctifying thru the mass and Sacraments

Zechariah 3:3 Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel.

4 And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment.

5 And I said, Let them set a fair mitre upon his head. So they set a fair mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the Lord stood by.

Jn 8:12
Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

Jn 9:5
As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

Matt 5:14
Ye (the apostles/ the church) are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
(There is only one church founded by Christ on Peter and the apostles and their successors!) matt 16:18 Jn 10:16 eph 2:20

Only Peter and the apostles and their successors have the teaching authority of Christ with the guarantee of the Holy Spirit! Matt 16:18 matt 18:18 matt 28:19 Jn 8:32 Jn 16:13

Fathers have care of their children, spiritual fathers care for our souls!

Pope, papa, father, yes spiritual father!

Isa 22 father

Christ is the head of the church!
Peter is appointed by Christ as the head of the church on earth!
Supreme pastor and teacher of the faithful!

Matt 10:2
First apostle Peter:

 

[ReChoired]

Christ founded the church on Peter!

As I just showed, from the study done by the Archbishop (you do believe in hierarchy, don't you, he's an 'Elder', and you are???) of the Roman Catholic church, that the vast majority of 'ecf' disagree with that assumption of yours. Only 17 church 'fathers' agree with you. All the others (over 44, at least 44) do not. You are out of harmony with the majority, and therefore hold to a heretical position, against the will of the greater body of believers and 'fathers'. When the majority have decided, why do you go against it? It would be like saying that though the majority at the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) voted (based upon scripture, etc) that Gentiles did not have to be come circumcised, neither to keep the 'law of Moses' to be saved, and you still decided to go with the minority of Pharisees who said, 'NO, Gentiles, must certainly still get circumcised and keep the 'a law of Moses'."

That would be out of harmony with the majority, just as you are now with the many 'fathers', that you say you hold to. You see, you pick and choose your religion when it suits "you". "You" are really your own "pope". No one is deciding any factors of what you believe and practice except "you", though there is a pretense otherwise. Only when it is convenient do you have the appearance of acceptance of others, but in reality, it is merely you already choosing for yourself (that's heresy by the way), and then you aligning with what looks to pass for what others accept.

 

[ReChoired]

Matt 10:2
First apostle Peter:

In a list of names in Matthew 10:2, Peter is indeed listed 'first' in that text, but not always in other texts, and he was not the first Apostle to follow Christ Jesus or even acknowledge that Jesus was the Christ. That went to Andrew and John.

Joh 1:40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
Joh 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.​

Peter, later followed with the same inspired thought.

Your text, of Matthew 10:2, is in the context of Jesus giving the same authority and power to all 12 Apostles, which later, the very same, was also given to the '70' (Luke 10:1,17), and afterward (to over 120 in the upper room, and it included women, Acts 2):

Mat 10:1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
Mat 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
Mat 10:3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
Mat 10:4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.​

Judas is also listed. You might say listed 'last', but still listed none the less, for the order given is not identifying 'Peter' over others. It's just a list. It's not even in the order of when they were 'found'. Notice the text, "he gave them [all listed] power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease." They were not following Peter's orders, etc, they were following Christ Jesus' orders, and He spake unto "them" (all; see also Luke 9:2-3, "together", Luke 9:1), not merely to Peter (him). Christ is the Head here (Matthew 10:24-25, "the master", "lord"). The others, including Peter, are just the body, outworking the will of the Head - Jesus Christ. Jesus even told them, in times of trial, it is not they who speak, but the Father, in Heaven above, by the Holy Ghost (Matthew 10:19-20).

Peter is not listed first here, and is even listed after "Apollos", and before "Christ":

1Co_1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.​

Peter is not listed first here, and is even listed after "Apollos":

1Co_3:22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;​

You see, Paul was actually the "Apostle to the Gentiles".

Rom_15:16 That I [Paul] should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

Gal_2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me [Paul] toward the Gentiles:)​

Peter was still having issues with Gentiles:

Gal_2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
​

In this text, John was "first", before Peter, to the tomb of Jesus, and before that, were the women:

Joh_20:4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.
​

Your whole 'argument', is just like those who say, "I am of Cephas [Peter]". Paul said it was childish in the things of the Spirit.

 

[ReChoired]

Christ is the head of the church!

Scriptural:

Eph_5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.​

Peter is appointed by Christ as the head of the church on earth!

Ooops, you just left scripture, and went with "you". Jesus actually provided another leader, in His physical absence. It is the Holy Ghost/Spirit:

Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Joh 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Joh 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.​

The Holy Ghost comes in Christ's stead/name. He (the Holy Ghost) is the (Infallible, unlike Peter in his fallibleness) Head Teacher on earth, having come down from Heaven (Acts 2:1-3,33; Psalms 133:1-3; Revelation 5:6, etc).

You will not find one scripture saying that Peter is the head of anything on earth. Not one. Go ahead and produce that 'one' text in your next reply. Waste not time and space with anything else. Prove your point from scripture, rather than from "you".

Peter Himself identifies who the "Chief Shepherd" is. It is Jesus Christ, and shows that the other 'elder's are not be "lord's over God's heritage":

1Pe 5:3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.
1Pe_5:4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.​

As such, Jesus still is "on earth" by and through His personally chosen Representative, the Holy Ghost/Spirit.

Supreme pastor and teacher of the faithful!

You are simply quoting from "you", the First Book of "theefaith", rather than any portion of Holy Writ (Bible). Peter himself says:

1Pe_2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.​

What is the context of that verse? It's Jesus (1 Peter 2:21-24), not Peter.

You see, now don't you??? That when it suits "your" religion, you even deny what Peter actually says, and put in his place an imaginary "Peter" that never existed in history, never existed in scripture, and only exists in "your" mind, "your" religion.

Even in the KJB notes, we see others a "first bishop", such as Titus, and Timothy, and others like Gaius:

Tit_3:15 All that are with me salute thee. Greet them that love us in the faith. Grace be with you all. Amen. It was written to Titus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Cretians, from Nicopolis of Macedonia.

2Ti_4:22 The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen. The second epistle unto Timotheus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Ephesians, was written from Rome, when Paul was brought before Nero the second time.

3Jn 1:1 The elder unto the wellbeloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth.​

When Paul writes his many epistles, why does he not mention "Peter" as in a position of authority in any church? Not even the one in Rome (see Romans 1 & 16, where Peter is not even mentioned at all!)?

Php 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:​

In Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, not once does Paul acknowledge this 'supremacy' of Peter as chief or head over all the Apostles. Peter is absent from most of these epistles, and when Peter is mentioned, it is for his mistakes, or as simply someone among equals:

Gal 2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.​

In that instance, James was listed first, because he was the actual 'chair' of the Jerusalem Council. See Acts 15. In the very next few verses, Paul withstands against Peter's hypocrisy before everyone present, Galatians 2:11-14.

When Peter finally writes 2 Epistles (1 & 2 Peter) (that's 11 less than Paul wrote, who wrote 13 Epistles, and 1 Epistle and 1 Gospel and 1 Revelation, less that John, who wrote 3 Epistles, and 1 Gospel and 1 Revelation), he does not take a position of 'authority' over any other 'Elders' or 'Apostles' in his epistles. He writes as an equal to them all, and even acknowledges the 'authority' that is already from Christ Jesus by the Holy Ghost/Spirit that the local churches and their own bishops/elders have apart from himself.

2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

2Pe 1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

2Pe 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:​

Peter even mentions Paul as an equal:

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.​

Peter even states that the word of God, in Prophecy, is more sure than Peter's own eyewitness testimony, in 2 Peter 1:19-21.

When Peter, in both of his epistles and all his speeches, finally mentions a "rock", it is not to himself, but to Christ that he acknowledges:

1Pe_2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.​

You are the one stumbling over the very same thing. You are rejecting the "word", even Peter's words in scripture, for "your own" words, of "your own" making. You are citing the first epistle of "theefaith".