Baptism question that seems unbiblical

[epostle1]

You didn't prove me wrong. You disagreed. And then you present some protestants who agree with you. Big deal. I am not going to argue with every protestant you want to present. If you think I am in error, then 'you' show me and we can debate it. As you tried to. But you didn't.

So, if you want to go over it again, use your protestants arguments and yours and prove to me that Peter is the Rock, and I will argue against you that Peter is not the Rock. If you don't want to go over it again, go back to post #345 and start there and you will see my argument to you and to your protestants.

Stranger

Why the dichotomy? Why can't Peter be the Rock in a lesser sense and Jesus be the Rock in a fuller sense?

Let's throw out Matthew 16:18 for the time being:

Matt. 14:28-29 – only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 – Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

Matt. 16:17 – Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

Matt. 16:19 – only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

Matt. 17:24-25 – the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus’ tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Matt. 17:26-27 – Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ’s representative on earth.

Matt. 18:21 – in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus’ teachings.

Matt. 19:27 – Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 10:28 – here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 11:21 – Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus’ curse on the fig tree.

Mark 14:37 – at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

Mark 16:7 – Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.

Luke 5:4,10 – Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the “fisher of men.”

Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples. Jesus also singles Peter out and judges his conduct vis-à-vis the conduct of the woman who anointed Him.

Luke 8:45 – when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.

Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 – Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Luke 9:28;33 – Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.

Luke 12:41 – Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter’s formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.

Luke 22:31-32 – Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 – John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.

Luke 24:34 – the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.

John 6:68 – after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.

John 13:6-9 – Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.

John 13:36; 21:18 – Jesus predicts Peter’s death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred.

John 21:2-3,11 – Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the “barque of Peter”) is a metaphor for the Church.

John 21:7 – only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.

John 21:15 – in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus “more than these,” which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.

John 21:15-17 – Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

Acts 1:13 – Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord’s ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.

Acts 1:15 – Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn’t it need one to Peter? Of course.

Acts 2:14 – Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.

Acts 2:38 – Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

Acts 3:1,3,4 – Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.

Acts 3:6-7 – Peter works the first healing of the apostles.

Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 – Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ.

Acts 5:3 – Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.

Acts 5:15 – Peter’s shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.

Acts 8:14 – Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.

Acts 8:20-23 – Peter casts judgment on Simon’s quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.

Acts 9:32-34 – Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and works the healing of Aeneas.

Acts 9:38-40 – Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.

Acts 10:5 – Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.

Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 – Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).

Acts 12:5 – this verse implies that the “whole Church” offered “earnest prayers” for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.

Acts 12:6-11 – Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.

Acts 15:7-12 – Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church’s first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

Acts 15:12 – only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter’s definitive teaching.

Acts 15:13-14 – then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter’s definitive teaching. “Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited…”

Rom. 15:20 – Paul says he doesn’t want to build on “another man’s foundation” referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.

1 Cor. 15:4-8 – Paul distinguishes Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles. Christ appeared “to Cephas, then to the twelve.”

Gal.1:18 – Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ’s Revelation to Paul.

1 Peter 5:1 – Peter acts as the chief bishop by “exhorting” all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

2 Peter 3:16 – Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul’s letters.

Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock.

Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:44 – yet Peter, as the first, humbled himself to be the last and servant of all servants.

WAIT! THERE'S MORE!!

“Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him.” Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).“Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him.”
Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).

Oh wait, Protestants don't like the Early Church Fathers because none of them were Protestant. oh darn!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Oh really, and what's your tale that you claim is more legitimate?

YOU said:
"Hey Breadman, I heard the real reason for the split between east and west was that east called Saint Nicholas the real Santa Claus but the pope claimed his own Saint Nicholas as the real Santa Claus."

This is an asinine claim because we honor the SAME St. Nicholas.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You didn't prove me wrong. You disagreed. And then you present some protestants who agree with you. Big deal. I am not going to argue with every protestant you want to present. If you think I am in error, then 'you' show me and we can debate it. As you tried to. But you didn't.

So, if you want to go over it again, use your protestants arguments and yours and prove to me that Peter is the Rock, and I will argue against you that Peter is not the Rock. If you don't want to go over it again, go back to post #345 and start there and you will see my argument to you and to your protestants.

Stranger

And, as I stated earlier - a flat denial is NOT a valid debating point.

It's no better than the spoiled child who covers his ears and shuts his eyes rather than reason . . .

 

[APAK]

Why the dichotomy? Why can't Peter be the Rock in a lesser sense and Jesus be the Rock in a fuller sense?

Let's throw out Matthew 16:18 for the time being:

Matt. 14:28-29 – only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 – Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

Matt. 16:17 – Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

Matt. 16:19 – only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

Matt. 17:24-25 – the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus’ tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Matt. 17:26-27 – Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ’s representative on earth.

Matt. 18:21 – in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus’ teachings.

Matt. 19:27 – Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 10:28 – here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 11:21 – Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus’ curse on the fig tree.

Mark 14:37 – at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

.......

epostle1:

Why so many verses? What is your purpose? To show that Peter was extra special? You have over 50 verses you just chucked out. Do you want anyone to respond to you. Is this the work of a loving and edifying person that says they know God and wants to share his word with someone?

If this is meant to be an exchange of ideas to discover scriptural truths you might have only presented a few scriptures at a time.

Let me briefly review a few of your scriptures you pose for your claim of a ‘special’ Peter. I will comment after each of the verses.


Matt. 14:28-29 – only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.


You forget the rest of the story. Peter wanted to have faith although he had little of it. PETER HAD LITTLE FAITH. Read verses 30-31. Jesus told them they had little faith, including Peter.


Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 – Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

Peter was not the first to confess the divine nature of Jesus. Scripture is not clear on this.

Peter confessed Jesus was the Christ, the son of the living God, and NOT the divinity of Christ in Mark 16:16. Mark 8:29.

Peter knew that Jesus was set apart and anointed by God for a purpose. We cannot jump and conclude Peter know of his divine nature, at least at that point.

In John 6:69, Peter was not the only one that knew Jesus was the ‘holy one’ of God. All his true disciples knew he was the Christ of God. This verse is not applicable only to Peter. You might want to double-check so you are satisfied.

Matt. 16:17 – Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

Yes, this is true.

Matt. 16:19 – only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

I believe you have gotten carried away with a strange or even illogical meaning of this verse. It is not in context with this scripture passage area whatsoever.

Let’s look at Matt 16:17-18 first. Peter received a word of knowledge from the Father. This meant that the spirit of God was upon Peter at that time. Agreed? Jesus knew and told Peter and his disciples, not just Peter, that this is how God is going to build his congregation or assembly of believers. The assembly would be built by people possessing the spirit of God abiding within their heart and minds, of those he chose. It thus would be superior in power and will overcome the hold of our first death in Hades by providing us eventual eternal life.

Peter’s experience and holy knowledge was an EXAMPLE ONLY to provide the reader, Peter, and to his peers of who and what is meant to be a true believer of Christ and thus God. And we know this was realized at the Day of the Pentecost, in the future. They possessed the spirit of God.

Jesus also says his believers will have the keys to heaven and will be able to bind or unbind. Whatever they bind of earth will also be bound in heaven. Now the keys mean the holy knowledge of the good news the gospel. True believers would have the power to ‘forgive’ sin and to ‘retain’ sin based on whether they chose to preach the gospel to an audience or not. Their gospel preaching on earth would directly impact a person’s status in heaven. People would be in Christ or not, saved or not.

Matt. 17:24-25 – the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus’ tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

I believe you are presuming too much. How can you say Peter is the vicar of Christ based on him replying to a tax collector and then being queried by Jesus concerning if we should pay taxes? I think you are trying to build a case that Peter is more special than his peers based on his experience with the spirit of God. And now you are using this as the basis and ammunition to say that any place Peter is mentioned in scripture he is Gods’ special person. Quite an imagination.


Matt. 17:26-27 – Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ’s representative on earth.

How can you say Peter is Christ’s rep on earth? Quite a bold statement to make based on Peter going fishing and acquiring the coins out of the caught fish.

Matt. 18:21 – in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus’ teachings.

And your point is….Peter is God’s special person?

Matt. 19:27 – Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

Peter is concerned and scared about his future because Jesus has just told them it is hard for a rich man to enter heaven. Peter is human like his peers and he wanted to know that by them giving up their possessions they are not considered in the same class as a rich man, loaded with many material things. Peter is not considered special here.

Mark 10:28 – here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.

Same explanation I gave above.

Mark 11:21 – Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus’ curse on the fig tree.

Peter had little faith, as his peers, and is upset by the tree dying in front of them after Jesus cursed it. If you continued and counted the next verses, Jesus is talking about the importance of having great faith which was absent from Peter.

Mark 14:37 – at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

Your last sentence and statement has no place in this verse. Jesus is again teaching Peter lacked faith and cannot even stay awake (3x), as with his peers when he was meant to be alert. Jesus was not really speaking about having physical faith in self which is ‘weak,’ unreliable and undesirable, but spiritual faith.

Peter lacked strong faith.....this is what your presentation and theme should be. It is what scripture depicts. Peter was not extra 'special.'

Bless you,

APAK

 

[Stranger]

And, as I stated earlier - a flat denial is NOT a valid debating point.

It's no better than the spoiled child who covers his ears and shuts his eyes rather than reason . . .

It wasn't a flat denial. Go back and reread. Again, start with post #345 and read on. If you're confused get back to me. Yes, yes, you like to play with pictures. That is already known.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

It wasn't a flat denial. Go back and reread. Again, start with post #345 and read on. If you're confused get back to me. Yes, yes, you like to play with pictures. That is already known.

Stranger

I already went back to Post #345. You don't explain why you disagree with the Protestant scholars.

 

[Stranger]

I already went back to Post #345. You don't explain why you disagree with the Protestant scholars.

Pay attention. The argument of your protestant scholars is the same argument you were giving. I disagree with them for the same reasons I disagree with you. Just because they are protestant doesn't change my argument. Which I have explained already to you many times.

Stranger

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

We don't shoot our wounded. The Church takes time to digest Kung's complaints, especially given the fact that papal infallibility was already worked out in 1870. To be fair to Kung, greasing one squeaky wheel, the Church has to go over the same issues that have long been resolved. He claims they are outdated. If you learn anything out of this, know that theologians have a voice in spite of the fact that most Catholics disagree with them.

Most people do not understand the doctrine of Papal infallibility, they are totally uneducated on the subject and just to ignorant to bother to look into it.

I grew up as a protestant and hated the RCC totally I was so angered by them that I bothered to look into what the RCC Church was truly on about and I found out that they were not so stupid as I thought they were or led to believe, it proved all Protestant claims were just nonsense and such were just childish rants with no substance of what the real Church was saying, but it is true what the Protestants were saying about the average RC and the average RC is full of crap, spun by stupid RC priest, it's a satanic load of crap many go on about that is not Biblical at all, but mainly mans works based dribble.
I think it's because the RCC has been infiltrated by so many Satanist, not to mention that the other Protestants all are totally as well, and I think it has to do with if you preach the word of Jesus Christ you will be hung out to dry, so many in the churches do not want to hear what Jesus said, the anger you are exposed to is un relentless, go talk about Jesus and see where you get with them, they don't want to know, talk about your garden etc and they will talk for hours. to try to get people to talk about Jesus is like puling teeth, I am not interested in your religion, my interested in Jesus Christ.

Problem is people look at things from a worldly perspective and that's why they fail to see the true picture.
To say that something is out dated comes across as dribble, just like one may say one is old fashion, what is meant buy such a comment, is it just the trend one is following ? or could it be that one just rejects the morality of the past generation, as just another trend.
Fashion is has no real worth.
Or people who come back with one liners just shows the ego can be leading one astray, it's better to involve ones self in pointing out the points you may have an issue with and then one may work to a resolve.

 

[epostle1]

Most people do not understand the doctrine of Papal infallibility, they are totally uneducated on the subject and just to ignorant to bother to look into it.

I grew up as a protestant and hated the RCC totally I was so angered by them that I bothered to look into what the RCC Church was truly on about and I found out that they were not so stupid as I thought they were or led to believe, it proved all Protestant claims were just nonsense and such were just childish rants with no substance of what the real Church was saying, but it is true what the Protestants were saying about the average RC and the average RC is full of crap, spun by stupid RC priest, it's a satanic load of crap many go on about that is not Biblical at all, but mainly mans works based dribble.
I think it's because the RCC has been infiltrated by so many Satanist, not to mention that the other Protestants all are totally as well, and I think it has to do with if you preach the word of Jesus Christ you will be hung out to dry, so many in the churches do not want to hear what Jesus said, the anger you are exposed to is un relentless, go talk about Jesus and see where you get with them, they don't want to know, talk about your garden etc and they will talk for hours. to try to get people to talk about Jesus is like puling teeth, I am not interested in your religion, my interested in Jesus Christ.

Problem is people look at things from a worldly perspective and that's why they fail to see the true picture.
To say that something is out dated comes across as dribble, just like one may say one is old fashion, what is meant buy such a comment, is it just the trend one is following ? or could it be that one just rejects the morality of the past generation, as just another trend.
Fashion is has no real worth.
Or people who come back with one liners just shows the ego can be leading one astray, it's better to involve ones self in pointing out the points you may have an issue with and then one may work to a resolve.

Talk to your doctor about how you feel about the CC, then maybe we can have a civilized discussion. I don't waste time with psychotic rants.

 

[epostle1]

epostle1:

Why so many verses? What is your purpose? To show that Peter was extra special? You have over 50 verses you just chucked out. Do you want anyone to respond to you. Is this the work of a loving and edifying person that says they know God and wants to share his word with someone?

The purpose is to show there is more than one verse supporting Peter's primacy.

If this is meant to be an exchange of ideas to discover scriptural truths you might have only presented a few scriptures at a time.

A few scriptures at a time doesn't cut it for the hard headed.

Let me briefly review a few of your scriptures you pose for your claim of a ‘special’ Peter. I will comment after each of the verses.

I never said Peter was "special", I said he had primacy as leader of the Apostles and leader of the universal Church and supported that statement with an overwhelming number of scriptures.

Matt. 14:28-29 – only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.

You forget the rest of the story. Peter wanted to have faith although he had little of it. PETER HAD LITTLE FAITH. Read verses 30-31. Jesus told them they had little faith, including Peter.

You are ignoring the whole story.
Peter's faith was in formation. He ultimately had great faith because Jesus prayed that he would, unless you believe the Father didn't hear Jesus' prayers. You are isolating verses with damaging consequences. see Luke 22:31-32 Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 – Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

Peter was not the first to confess the divine nature of Jesus. Scripture is not clear on this.

If not Peter, then who??? Yet you seem certain that scripture isn't clear and fail to name who was the first. You are not making any sense.

Peter confessed Jesus was the Christ, the son of the living God, and NOT the divinity of Christ in Mark 16:16. Mark 8:29.

Because the Council of Chalcedon would not take place until 451 AD when the details of Christ's identity was realized.

Peter knew that Jesus was set apart and anointed by God for a purpose. We cannot jump and conclude Peter know of his divine nature, at least at that point.

We know that God revealed to Peter who Jesus was. Only Protestant rationalism turns it into a math problem.

In John 6:69, Peter was not the only one that knew Jesus was the ‘holy one’ of God. All his true disciples knew he was the Christ of God. This verse is not applicable only to Peter. You might want to double-check so you are satisfied.

You are time shifting. Matthew predates John. Of course the other disciples came to an awareness of Jesus' identity, but Peter was the first because Jesus said so.

Matt. 16:17 – Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

Yes, this is true.

Matt. 16:19 – only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

I believe you have gotten carried away with a strange or even illogical meaning of this verse. It is not in context with this scripture passage area whatsoever.

You have changed the meaning of "keys" in scripture.

Isa.22:22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Isa. 22:22 - we see that the keys of the kingdom pass from Shebna to Eliakim. Thus, the keys are used not only as a symbol of authority, but also to facilitate succession. The keys of Christ's kingdom have passed from Peter to Linus all the way to our current Pope with an unbroken lineage for almost 2,000 years.

Rev. 1:18; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1 - Jesus' "keys" undeniably represent authority. By using the word "keys," Jesus gives Peter authority on earth over the new Davidic kingdom, and this was not seriously questioned by anyone until the Protestant reformation 1,500 years later after Peter’s investiture.

Revelation 3:7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: `The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Let’s look at Matt 16:17-18 first. Peter received a word of knowledge from the Father.

 

[epostle1]

This meant that the spirit of God was upon Peter at that time. Agreed? Jesus knew and told Peter and his disciples, not just Peter, that this is how God is going to build his congregation or assembly of believers. The assembly would be built by people possessing the spirit of God abiding within their heart and minds, of those he chose. It thus would be superior in power and will overcome the hold of our first death in Hades by providing us eventual eternal life.

The Church is built on Peter because that is Jesus' plan, I never said the Church is built on Peter alone.

Peter’s experience and holy knowledge was an EXAMPLE ONLY to provide the reader, Peter, and to his peers of who and what is meant to be a true believer of Christ and thus God. And we know this was realized at the Day of the Pentecost, in the future. They possessed the spirit of God.

What were they reading if there was no Bible for 350 years?

Jesus also says his believers will have the keys to heaven and will be able to bind or unbind. Whatever they bind of earth will also be bound in heaven. Now the keys mean the holy knowledge of the good news the gospel.

No, that is not what the keys mean and it's not what binding and loosing mean either.

True believers would have the power to ‘forgive’ sin and to ‘retain’ sin based on whether they chose to preach the gospel to an audience or not. Their gospel preaching on earth would directly impact a person’s status in heaven. People would be in Christ or not, saved or not.

And if their "gospel preaching" is incomplete, are the hearers partially saved?

Matt. 17:24-25 – the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus’ tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

I believe you are presuming too much. How can you say Peter is the vicar of Christ based on him replying to a tax collector and then being queried by Jesus concerning if we should pay taxes? I think you are trying to build a case that Peter is more special than his peers based on his experience with the spirit of God. And now you are using this as the basis and ammunition to say that any place Peter is mentioned in scripture he is Gods’ special person. Quite an imagination.

I didn't say Peter is vicar of Christ based on replying to a tax collector, you did. Peter is Vicar of Christ based on what Jesus said, and you are ignoring it.

Matt. 17:26-27 – Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ’s representative on earth.

• How can you say Peter is Christ’s rep on earth? Quite a bold statement to make based on Peter going fishing and acquiring the coins out of the caught fish.

Because it's a miracle, that's why. Why else would Jesus send Peter and not any of the other 11?

Matt. 18:21 – in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus’ teachings.

And your point is….Peter is God’s special person?

My point is Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus’ teachings.
Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

Peter is concerned and scared about his future because Jesus has just told them it is hard for a rich man to enter heaven.

It doesn't say anything about Peter being scared. You are reading into scripture what isn't there.

Peter is human like his peers and he wanted to know that by them giving up their possessions they are not considered in the same class as a rich man, loaded with many material things. Peter is not considered special here.

You miss the point. Peter is speaking on behalf of all the Apostles. That makes him special. You keep trying to deny Peter's role as spokesman. Peter being special is not the point; Peter speaking on behalf of all the Apostles is the point and you don't like it because of your anti-authority and anti-institution-ism is typical of non-denoms.
Mark 10:28 – here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.

Peter had little faith, as his peers, and is upset by the tree dying in front of them after Jesus cursed it. If you continued and counted the next verses, Jesus is talking about the importance of having great faith which was absent from Peter.

I think you should read the accounts in Matthew 21 and Mark 11, there is no mention of Peter being upset. You talk about having great faith as if it can be quantified. Where was the ""great faith" of David and Moses when they killed people? Who did Peter kill? Nobody. Your vendetta against Pope St. Peter is unbiblical, unhistorical, illogical and based on blind prejudice; no facts whatsoever. Luke 22:31-32 deny, deny, deny.
There is nothing in all of Mark 10 saying Peter had no faith. Try again.
Mark 14:37 – at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

Your last sentence and statement has no place in this verse. Jesus is again teaching Peter lacked faith and cannot even stay awake (3x), as with his peers when he was meant to be alert. Jesus was not really speaking about having physical faith in self which is ‘weak,’ unreliable and undesirable, but spiritual faith.
Peter lacked strong faith.....this is what your presentation and theme should be. It is what scripture depicts. Peter was not extra 'special.'

Peter was accountable, that does not mean Peter will always be successful....Remember Peter raised Tabitha from the dead. He had weak faith? Where in scripture is "great faith" a requirement for great leadership? Chapter and verse, please.
For the third time, Jesus prayed for Peter that his faith would not fail AFTER HE HAD FALLEN ASLEEP. Faith has to be formed, not inoculated. Peter's faith was formed. Ultimately it didn't fail but apparently you refuse to accept this. You seem to think that great faith comes by inoculation. That's not how great faith is acquired. You are scripturally nearsighted. Luke 22:31-32 deny, deny, deny. You are trying to tell me the Father ignored Jesus' prayer that Peter's faith would not fail.

The Bible doesn't undermine Peter's authority the way you do, you do it because it is a man made tradition to do so, PERIOD.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Pay attention. The argument of your protestant scholars is the same argument you were giving. I disagree with them for the same reasons I disagree with you. Just because they are protestant doesn't change my argument. Which I have explained already to you many times.

Stranger

Apparently you didn't bother to READ them.
There are differences and nuances in their explanations that I didn't touch on.

 

[BreadOfLife]

but it is true what the Protestants were saying about the average RC and the average RC is full of crap, spun by stupid RC priest, it's a satanic load of crap many go on about that is not Biblical at all, but mainly mans works based dribble.
I think it's because the RCC has been infiltrated by so many Satanist,.

Really?

NAME one. Name just ONE satanist who has "infiltrated" the Church and made changes to it.
While you're at it - clean up your potty mouth and show me how the Church is a "Satanic load of cra_"

Something tells me that you don't have a CLUE as to what the Catholic Church teaches . . .

 

[Stranger]

Apparently you didn't bother to READ them.
There are differences and nuances in their explanations that I didn't touch on.

Well, if you didn't touch on them, then touch on them.

Stranger

 

[APAK]

The Church is built on Peter because that is Jesus' plan, I never said the Church is built on Peter alone.

Wow you had two posts for me....I only read the first. I guess this should be sufficient though to get my points across or not. You know you should focus on only a few scriptures at a time. You must have spent hours preparing you response. A little overkill. I guess not if you are trying to convince me of something by quantity verse quality, aye?

Epostle1:

Your words, “The purpose is to show there is more than one verse supporting Peter's primacy.”

Of course, I totally disagree if based on scripture alone.

Well that is my entire point and what I surmised already. You are trying to make Peter more than a human apostle that was first under the law. Peter was used as a leader to his peers along with James and John in their own way. These three were part of the ‘inner circle’ of Jesus.

Peter was clearly showing leadership as a man without SPIRITUAL faith. He had loads of carnal faith in him and from himself, the wrong kind! He lacked the spirit of God – this is a major theme if you failed to recognize it.

Jesus more than once prayed for Peter, yes to our Father (you can calm down, I truly believe it) because Jesus did not want the little carnal faith to become destroyed under tribulation and testing. This could easily have occurred without the intervention of the Father and his spirit. Now Jesus at least once, told Peter was told to strengthen his peers (in faith). Do you think it was by Peter lecturing them and giving them a pep talk on how to sustain faith? I think not. Jesus was telling Peter to tell his peers the words that our Father shall sustain their little faith, as Jesus has already prayed to the Father, for Peter, and it was done.

Even though the apostles had a front row seat to see the gospel unfold before their very eyes through Jesus, they still had no more faith than a person of today that does not know Christ. This must be a profound statement!

And you are showing this bias for Peter again in your latest reply with more words that are meant to reinforce your purpose of his primacy. These added words though should not be considered fact or true because you have presented them. They could be reinforcing more errors. One must discern them, else one is ignorant and can believes fables. Wouldn’t you agree?

Your words, “… I said he had primacy as leader of the Apostles and leader of the universal Church and supported that statement with an overwhelming number of scriptures.”

I can agree without doing any further analysis that Peter, including James and John were all considered of the inner circle and leaders of the Apostles in their own right, as it was necessary for Jesus to appoint them and he did favor them from the start. Scripture does not even hint of Peter being or having so-called primacy.

Yes, Peter was appointed to lead the mission of preaching the gospel that extended out to where Judahites and House of Judah were located, not to the other nations as that was Paul’s mission territory. Peter never made it to Rome. In scripture it was indicated his last location was East of Judea.

I cannot agree there is an overwhelming number of scripture verses pointing to the primacy of Peter over the rest of the apostle and later believers.

I cannot agree that Peter was ever singled out as any future leader of any universal ‘church.’ It is not in scripture, explicitly or implicitly that suggest that Peter progressed to build a building(s), an earthly ‘church’ for Christ. I think based on scripture, you have no grounds to make such a statement. Jesus never suggested to take the spiritual invisible Kingdom within, as one of his major themes, and then forget to tell us he wanted to build a visible earthly Kingdom called a Catholic Kingdom, and Peter placed as its cornerstone. instead of himself. Now that is a stretch and it must be found in another Bible.

Yes, there are selected historical figures that convinced people of power and influence that their interpretation of scripture and added thoughts were God-inspired. These clouds of ideas I like to call them were meant to bridge or meld scripture truth as a wrap-around total truth that soon became called the so-called divine traditions of God. They were pulled out of the clouds. It formed their religion, as their basis for belief, starting nearly a hundred years after Christ exited the earth. I do know quite a bit of this subject although I would not want these individual uninspired writings contaminating the inspired words of scripture.

Your words, “Matt. 14:28-29 – only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.”

Peter as is character was such, a little brazen and brash and strong-willed, did of course attempt to walk on water after he requested Christ give him the command of reassurance. He was of course the captain of his boat and fancied himself as the leader of his peers, especially after Jesus appointed him. You are correct that Peter walked on the water and the others did not. Again, Peter was using his unspiritual, natural faith and prowess to gain spiritual faith, that never works. I already spoke of it earlier.

The faith given by God is in different measures for different people. We cannot get it by ourselves. We first must hear the gospel or read and understand the words of the gospel. In Peter’s case he was witnessing the birth of the gospel first hand, regardless of it spoken of in the OT. After rebirth since the Day of Pentecost, each one is provided their own faith to believe and to perform in the body of Christ. It is then up to them to grow in it, to maturity or not.

Your words, “Peter's faith was in formation. He ultimately had great faith because Jesus prayed that he would, unless you believe the Father didn't hear Jesus' prayers. You are isolating verses with damaging consequences. see Luke 22:31-32 Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.”

Again, Peter’s unspiritual faith was in formation and not his spiritual faith, he never had none without God. Sounds neat although it’s not where faith comes from and how it grows. I just explained this topic above. As I also said our Father sustained him with our Father’s spirit or power; a temporary thing until the Day of Pentecost when he would feel the power and presence of God in permanence.

Well, if I was little cryptic by me saying, “…Now the keys mean(t) the holy knowledge of the good news (,) the gospel. True believers would have the power to ‘forgive’ sin and to ‘retain’ sin based on whether they chose to preach the gospel to an audience or not. …” Add in the word ‘authority’ to know and preach the gospel that produced the consequences I spoke of. There is also nothing about an earthly kingdom being pronounced or produced here. In effect though, by the apostles receiving the authority to preach the gospel and affecting one’s sins and thus their salvation, they collectively were building the Kingdom of God of Heaven within each person’s heart; and not into a political-religious organization, called ‘the church’ which I already pointed out as being an alien entity, according to scripture.

Bless you,

APAK

 

[BreadOfLife]

Well, if you didn't touch on them, then touch on them.

Stranger

Why are you so afraid to address those Protestant scholars??

 

[epostle1]

Pay attention. The argument of your protestant scholars is the same argument you were giving. I disagree with them for the same reasons I disagree with you. Just because they are protestant doesn't change my argument. Which I have explained already to you many times.

Stranger

We can't appeal to the Early Church Fathers because none of them were Protestant;
we can't appeal to Protestant scholars because you know more than they do;
God forbid if we appeal to Catholic scholars, the most respected in the world;
the only thing left we can appeal to that you would accept is your opinions.

 

[Stranger]

Why are you so afraid to address those Protestant scholars??

I'm not. As I said, my argument with them is the same with you. See post #345 and following. If you feel there is something more they are saying, say on.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

We can't appeal to the Early Church Fathers because none of them were Protestant;
we can't appeal to Protestant scholars because you know more than they do;
God forbid if we appeal to Catholic scholars, the most respected in the world;
the only thing left we can appeal to that you would accept is your opinions.

You could appeal to Scripture.

Stranger

 

[epostle1]

APAK

I cannot agree that Peter was ever singled out as any future leader of any universal ‘church.’ It is not in scripture, explicitly or implicitly that suggest that Peter progressed to build a building(s), an earthly ‘church’ for Christ. [/quote] A building is not a church, I never said it was. It would have been illegal and the Romans would have destroyed it.

I think based on scripture, you have no grounds to make such a statement. Jesus never suggested to take the spiritual invisible Kingdom within, as one of his major themes, and then forget to tell us he wanted to build a visible earthly Kingdom called a Catholic Kingdom, and Peter placed as its cornerstone. instead of himself. Now that is a stretch and it must be found in another Bible.

I said no such thing. Eph. 5:32- Paul calls the Church a “mystery.” This means that the significance of the Church as the kingdom of God in our midst cannot be understood by reason alone. Understanding the Church also requires faith. “Church” does not mean a building of believers. That is not a mystery. Non-Catholics often view church as mere community, but not the supernatural mystery of Christ physically present among us.

Origins of the word "Catholic" is found in the Greek kataholis, Romans 1:8:
….and you belong to that Church whose faith St. Paul describes as being "proclaimed (KATAnggeletai Gk.) in the whole universe (en HOLO to kosmo Gk.)” (KATAHOLO)
and Acts 9:31. "church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria" Those are statements of universality. "Non-denominational and Protestant" are foreign to scripture.
There the words "church throughout all" is translated from the Greek words "Ecclesia KATAHOLIS" > Catholicus (Latin) Catholic (English)

Thus the word KATAHOLOS or Catholic in English originated from Scriptures - Romans 1:8, Acts 9:31


But it was after Ignatius that the term Catholic Church became used more and more to designate the true church. deny, deny, deny...

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
deny, deny, deny...

“[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished.”
Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).
deny, deny, deny...

Other written records of the term "CATHOLIC" describing a character of the Christian Church:

Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 202AD;
Cyprian, Unity of the Catholic Church 251AD;
Cyprian, Letter to Florentius, 254AD

Early Church Fathers? the standard non-denom fix:

"...YOU are Peter and upon this ROCK I will build my alien entity....

You are just another under educated religious wacko that lacks humility and can't be taught anything.