Search results

Okay...this is the big problem: Jesus asked all his disciples about who people said He was. Peter had the correct answer. And our Father in heaven was accredited for how the answer came to Peter. The subject was: “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” (Christ). The compound (secondary)...

I am no respecter of persons. The old testament leadership does not apply to the church. They are "the dead in Christ", we are "the living in Christ." You are wrong about "the keys' being given to Peter (read further down in chapter 18 - He clarifies that the keys applied to all His disciples...

No, I simply took a chance, even dared Him to answer. "First hand" means, I was not taught and did not hear from others, but received directly from God. Yes, if denominational teachings do not wash with what God has revealed to me, then the error is clear. It is no longer I who lives, but...

Why are you so keen to site God raising up leaders, but not to hear what he has [actually] said to Peter? Peter was not even the subject of Christ's question to Peter - and you have completely missed His point. As for the power to bind or loose, read further down in chapter 18. Jesus clarifies...

Luke 6:13 "And when it was day, He called His disciples to Himself;and from them He chose twelve whom He also named apostles:" Because He didn't single him out as a leader (any more than he singled out the rest of His apostles). When you (and the Catholic church) believe Christ singled out...

Here: ...You say that Catholics reject anything other than Christ being the Head of the church, then you say the Pope is the earthly Head. ...Wasn't it you who said "You can't have it both ways?" (now hypocrisy).

I am not a "believer." I did not know God, ran out of answers and options in life, called out to him, he answered - and now I "know" what I know...first hand. Nonetheless, I am not condemning all denominational teaching...just some of the motivation and error that comes from them. Nobody's...

No. Jesus gave him the title of "apostle"...nothing more. But, the dance here, is you and the Catholic church dancing around and avoiding the "subject" of Christ's statement, which is the revelation by His Father in heaven. Why do you continue to avoid the greater part?

I have already said "how." It is as I said: given the choice of following the man Peter or the principle of revelation by God, the Catholic church has chosen to revere Peter and appoint a line of successors. And according to you...the office is "Head (Christ) on earth."

No, I am being honest, nor is my English in error. It can be and is, defined as "substitute." But"vicar" is not my choice of words, but rather those of Catholic church. So, if you have an accusation of dishonesty regarding the word, you should take it up with them. Even so, "head" especially...

Well...not really. I would say that most of the denominational masses turn as much of a blind eye to their charter as they do to the word of God. The good news is, some do as what they are told/taught or what they receive in spirit, and not what the leaders do.

That is not true...and you contradict yourself in the same paragraph: The term "vicar" comes from the Latin word vicarius, which means "instead of."

No. If we see a tree growing after many years, we know that it sprouted up at some point. The tree is the evidence. Likewise, a system of belief that raises up a man to be head of the church, is evidence of it self.

By adopting a system of governing Popes...whenever that was. If they came to that fork in the road stated by Christ of whether to follow Peter or the spirit of God - then, Yes. And if they then, went on to preach and to teach others to follow their own misunderstanding - Yes again, even worse.

No...and I do not gravitate toward "denominations" - sounds like "body parts." :)

1 Corinthians 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rockwas Christ.

Rulers, elders, and the like, are not the problem. It is assuming the position of Head - that is the problem. But since you ask, I will ask you a question: What do you tell God, when you revere a women (of the bride of Christ) for not being silent in the church?

No, I cannot. It's not my story. But here we are...and the Catholic denomination has arrived long ago at their position of naming Peter the first Pope and taking the path of revering a substitute for "God with us", and His Help, the Holy Spirit.

You are not paying attention. I said "both" Peter and the spirit of God are "the rock." The problem is, that Catholics should never have assumed the Higher position. And the only thing that has "been established" is that Christ has defined the building of his church by the same means that...

As division goes, the Catholic denomination is guilty of first blood: It was the Catholics who departed from the commandments of Christ to follow the flesh (Peter), rather than expecting the church to receive [directly] from the spirit of God, just as Peter had.