Built On The Wrong Apostle

[amadeus]

Chuckle... Marymog has accused me of putting words in her mouth and having my mind already made up!

I have no problem with you Amadeus. I just am looking forward to hearing her answer to the same charges she laid on me....

Just a funny observation.

Just keep on chuckling, and give God the glory!

 

[Marymog]

So if you agree with me that the Church wasn't built on Peter alone, why didn't you say so in post #78? It would've saved a lot of time just to simply agree with me on that point. Yet, I see all these quotes from you talking about how the Church was built on Peter but never a mention of the other apostles! Yes, you are right. You never said it was built on Peter alone. But reading these quotes is it unreasonable to believe that's what you were implying? Especially since it was your reply to me saying it wasn't built on Peter alone?
I mean... Is there anything else you secretly agree with me about but are arguing against me on?

Dear friend,

First, I would like to address your statement: “….I see all these quotes from you talking about how the Church was built on Peter but never a mention of the other apostles!” Since you may have overlooked it I will give you a pass on your false statement. Here is what I said in post #78 when talking about The Church: "Paul, and the other Apostles, laid the foundation and others that they appointed (Apostolic Succession) built on that foundation."

Second, if you take into consideration EVERYTHING I said in post #73, #78 and #79 (instead of partially quoting me) then it is plain to see what I believe. Putting those three post together it should be clear to you that we are in agreement and never were in a disagreement that all the Apostles had a hand in building The Church, however, Jesus made it clear that Peter was to be the leader of The Church. What you have accepted is the 500 year old protestant argument that Peter was not singled out by Jesus to be the leader of the Apostles and The Church after His death. If you were to read ANY legitimate Christian Historian or bible scholar they will tell you that Christian historical writings and Scripture makes it clear that Peter was the leader of the Apostles and The Church. Why was he the leader? Because Jesus made him their leader....Peter didn't do it on his own.

What you refuse to acknowledge is that to Peter and Peter alone did Jesus give the keys to the kingdom of heaven. I tepidly presume you know scripture and Jewish history so we both know how significant that is.

What you refuse to acknowledge is the significance of what Jesus said to Peter and Peter alone is that “YOU are rock and upon this rock I will build my Church" further adding that whatever YOU loosen/bind on earth will be loosened/bound in heaven. That entire passage IN CONTEXT with the other surrounding statements made by Jesus clearly shows that Jesus was talking TO Peter and Peter alone, even though the other Apostles were sitting right there with them. You have taken as your own the 500 year old theory that what Jesus really meant when he said those things was that Peter had a revelation “that Jesus was the Christ, the son of the living God” (post #84). Your theory doesn’t hold water because Jesus was talking directly TO Peter and then LATER also gave the power of binding and loosing to the other Apostles.

What you don’t want to acknowledge and see the significance in is that to Peter and Peter alone did Jesus tell to strengthen the other Apostles AND to Peter and Peter alone did He say three times, “feed/take care of my sheep”. I debunked your theory that Paul, or any other Apostle, was the rock of THE CHURCH that Jesus started. It is clear from Paul's own writings that Paul’s claim is about the foundation of the local Church at Corinth. Jesus words are VERY clear when He is speaking TO Peter, and Peter alone, he is talking about THE CHURCH. It is very clear to see that what Jesus said about Peter is NOT IN CONTEXT to what Paul said about himself and the other Apostles.

You want to compartmentalize all those statements by Jesus about Peter and all the passages from scripture showing Peter as the leader of the Apostles/The Church and try to discredit each and every passage individually by twisting them to fit the beliefs and teachings of the Reformation Era. (Actually, it was the reformers who disagreed with the Reformers that came up with these twisting of scriptures...but I digress) When you take scripture (and Christian Historical writings) in CONTEXT and look at the big picture one can see that Peter was and WHY Peter was the leader of The Church.

Thank you for acknowledging I am right. It is no secret what we agree on. It is all right there in front of your own eyes to see if you wish to put it all in context and stop partially quoting me.

Thank you for your time...Mary

 

[FHII]

irst, I would like to address your statement: “….I see all these quotes from you talking about how the Church was built on Peter but never a mention of the other apostles!” Since you may have overlooked it I will give you a pass on your false statement. Here is what I said in post #78 when talking about The Church: "Paul, and the other Apostles, laid the foundation and others that they appointed (Apostolic Succession) built on that foundation."

Ok... Let's look at what you really said:

Paul, and the other Apostles, laid the foundation and others that they appointed (Apostolic Succession) built on that foundation. Paul is not claiming to have laid the foundation of THE CHURCH. His claim is about the foundation of the local Church at Corinth. When Paul is writing his letter to the Corinthians he is talking about and writing to the church in Corinth. When Jesus is speaking to Peter he is talking about THE CHURCH. It is very clear to see that what Jesus said about Peter is NOT IN CONTEXT to what Paul said about himself and the other Apostles.

You even take yourself out of context! It's pretty clear what you were saying. Paul: Little, local church. Peter: BIG THE CHURCH. You are just playing games now and trying to back out of the corner you got yourself into.

 

[H. Richard]

So, since you (Mary) say Peter was the head apostle, why did Jesus send Paul out to the world? Which one of the 12 was sent, specially, to the Gentiles since, as you say, Peter was the head apostle?

Acts 9:15-16
15 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel.
16 For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name's sake."
NKJV

Since Paul was commissioned to go to the Gentiles, pagan kings, and the children of Israel by the ascended Jesus tell me way you don't place him (Paul) as the apostle for this age of God's grace?

 

[Marymog]

Still ignoring the part of the verse where Jesus said, "but ye shall not be so..."?

I never said they didn't and in fact have stated the did.

Its right there next to the verse which says Peter was the greatest apostle.

Tell me where you think I am wrong: Jesus called out Peter and Peter alone as one who was who Satan was desiring to sift, who needed prayer and who needed to be converted. He at the time was in the most danger. Peter alone denied Jesus 3 times. Of all the mistakes Peter made this was about to be the biggest.

If there was one there who was in a weaker state, why didn't Jesus pray for them? Why didn't Jesus warn them? So if you know of another disciple who was weaker at the moment (excluding Judas) please let me know.

Really? When? Where did they run to? I suppose in a sense they did... This wasn't about running away. This was about denying Jesus. Peter alone denied Jesus.

Since I have your attention (if I do) I would like to ask you about these keys that only Peter had... Tell me, what could these keys do? With Peter having sole possession of them, what could he bind or loose with them? (I didn't make that sound like a loaded question too much, did I?

Dear friend,

I'm not ignoring anything. It's been addressed. Once again put the entire passage in CONTEXT along with other passages from the NT and you will hopefully see the answer. Your theory does not hold water.

I never suggested there was another disciple (Apostle) who was weaker at the moment. Only you have. They were all weak and they all ran away. I previously made that clear in other post's. See if you can find it and stop playing games with me by misquoting me or not reading everything I write and then asking me about things I have already written about.

I am tired of asking you questions and you not answering them so why should I entertain yours? Besides that I have told you what I believe on all those matters. Please stop beating a dead horse. I'm tired of it.

As far as the keys to the kingdom of heaven I would reference you to Isaiah 22:22 and the passages surrounding it to put it in context. I suggest you look up Rev. 1:18 to put ALL of scripture in context in regard to the keys AND kingdom of heaven in scripture.

You can do your own research and google what many protestant and catholic scholars believe about the binding and loosening matter. I honestly think you don't really care what I think Peter could do with those keys do or what Peter, having sole possession of them, could bind or loose with them. I think your playing games with me. I'm tired of it. Educate yourself and once you have formed your opinion get back with me and I will gladly discuss it with you.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

You like to put words in people's mouths and then run them down without having a clue what they know or believe. God knows and what or who else matter if I am on His side.

Again you're putting words into my mouth and drawing your conclusions without knowledge.

God knows the Truth and those with whom He has shared it.

Is it? I disagree!

Since you already have made up your mind on all of these things there is no point in continuing the conversation.

It doesn't matter if you disagree. I could be right. You could be right. Only God knows. But thank you for your opinion.

BTW...When it comes to scripture and what it says on how one is saved.....when does opinion end and dogma begin?

Also....If only God knows all these things then how do you know the bible you keep quoteing from is complete? After all, it was man who gave us our 27 books of the NT and, as we know, man in fallible.

Curious Mary

 

[amadeus]

It doesn't matter if you disagree. I could be right. You could be right. Only God knows. But thank you for your opinion.

BTW...When it comes to scripture and what it says on how one is saved.....when does opinion end and dogma begin?

Also....If only God knows all these things then how do you know the bible you keep quoteing from is complete? After all, it was man who gave us our 27 books of the NT and, as we know, man in fallible.

Curious Mary

Man led by the Holy Spirit is infallible. Man who quenches the Holy Spirit is again fallible. Who does not quench?

 

[Marymog]

Ok... Let's look at what you really said:

You even take yourself out of context! It's pretty clear what you were saying. Paul: Little, local church. Peter: BIG THE CHURCH. You are just playing games now and trying to back out of the corner you got yourself into.

Ok... Let's look at what you really said:

You even take yourself out of context! It's pretty clear what you were saying. Paul: Little, local church. Peter: BIG THE CHURCH. You are just playing games now and trying to back out of the corner you got yourself into.

Dear friend,

I can see you have the inability to put peoples words and your conversations with them in CONTEXT. Sooooo I will be patient with you. I am going to use large and bold print. I assure you I am not yelling at you. I am concerned you may have an eytsight problem and I want you to see what I am writing.

Lets put EVERY POST WE HAVE MADE ABOUT THIS SUBJECT, IN CONTEXT. Also, how about if we quote everything I said instead of PARTIALLY QUOTEING ME to make your point????? (are you getting tired of hearing this? I'm tired of saying it)

"Paul didn't claim that he was the rock that the church was built on. Paul said that he "laid the foundation, and another builds on it". This is a true statement by Paul just as much as the statement that Jesus made about Peter is true."

The "foundation" statement by Paul in 1 Corinthians was in a letter to the Church at Corinth; it was not too or about THE CHURCH. The foundation statement IN CONTEXT to ALL OF SCRIPTURE and ALL THAT PAUL EVER SAID makes it clear that Paul had a part in laying the foundation of THE CHURCH. But that does not mean THE CHURCH was built on HIM. It was built on Peter, JUST LIKE JESUS SAID. It seems to me you want to act like only ONE of the statements can be true. They are both TRUE STATEMENTS. If you can't comprehend how they are both true statements then I feel bad for you.

So let me be very clear FOR THE VERY LAST TIME. The Church was built on Peter with Peter as it's head JUST LIKE SCRIPTURE SAYS. The Church was also built on the other Apostles AND the Apostles had a hand in starting (or building) individual churches LIKE THE ONE AT CORINTH.

If you can't comprehend that, I can't help you. I just know I am tired of your out of context quotes of me.

I have a suggestion for you. Cut and paste onto a word document ALL of my statements in regard to this matter. Read it thoroughly and put it all in context. Stop taking individual sentences or words I write and acting as if they are the only words I write and twisting them to your favor. If you have any LEGITIMATE questions after that, I will answer them.

Mary

 

[H. Richard]

It doesn't matter if you disagree. I could be right. You could be right. Only God knows. But thank you for your opinion.

BTW...When it comes to scripture and what it says on how one is saved.....when does opinion end and dogma begin?

Also....If only God knows all these things then how do you know the bible you keep quoteing from is complete? After all, it was man who gave us our 27 books of the NT and, as we know, man in fallible.

Curious Mary[/QUOTE

***
If a person thinks that the Holy Spirit is in the world to help the children of God then shouldn't that person consider that the Bible was put together by God, the Holy Spirit? Or is it that some don't think the Holy Spirit had anything to do with putting the scriptures together for us. All He did was inspire those that wrote them. LOL

 

[Marymog]

Man led by the Holy Spirit is infallible. Man who quenches the Holy Spirit is again fallible. Who does not quench?

Your statement may or may not be true. I don't know. You don't know. Only God knows if it's true.

The men who gave you the 27 books got the number of books right. They were infallible and led by the Holy Spirit at that time. But when they decided on how to properly interpret those 27 books, you disagree with them. Weird. How do you explain your inconsistency? Why were they infallible one day and fallible the next?

Would you like to TRY and answer my PREVIOUS questions from my previous post? Or have I stumped you into silence? Here they are, again:

When it comes to scripture and what it says on how one is saved.....when does opinion end and dogma begin?

If (according to your theory) only God knows all these things then how do you know the bible you keep quoting from is complete? After all, it was man who gave us our 27 books of the NT and, as we know, man in fallible.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

If a person thinks that the Holy Spirit is in the world to help the children of God then shouldn't that person consider that the Bible was put together by God, the Holy Spirit? Or is it that some don't think the Holy Spirit had anything to do with putting the scriptures together for us. All He did was inspire those that wrote them. LOL

Hi,

If that question is for me to personally answer....I don't understand it.

Mary

 

[H. Richard]

Hi,

If that question is for me to personally answer....I don't understand it.

Mary

It is very simple. The scriptures were written by those men lead by the Holy Spirit. It is a false statement that men put together the Bible by his own ideas. It was put together by men who were lead by the Holy Spirit. If lead by the Holy Spirit then it wasn't put together by man alone.

Now if you say it was put together by the ideas of man then our Bible is not the word of God and we are left with just another religion that has a book of rules for that religion and God does not exist except in the minds of men. IMO that is what our world has come down to..

Gen 6:3
3 And the Lord said,"My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."
NKJV

Ps 103:8-12
8 The Lord is merciful and gracious, Slow to anger, and abounding in mercy.
9 He will not always strive with us, Nor will He keep His anger forever.
10 He has not dealt with us according to our sins, Nor punished us according to our iniquities.
11 For as the heavens are high above the earth, So great is His mercy toward those who fear Him;
12 As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us.
NKJV

 

[Marymog]

You like to put words in people's mouths and then run them down without having a clue what they know or believe. God knows and what or who else matter if I am on His side.
Again you're putting words into my mouth and drawing your conclusions without knowledge.
God knows the Truth and those with whom He has shared it
Is it? I disagree!
Since you already have made up your mind on all of these things there is no point in continuing the conversation.

Nope. Not putting words in your mouth. Unless you can explain YOUR statements to me: How would I know which of the three was the most authoritative unless God told me? Even if you had named men who had lived and I had read all of their reasons for their ways of believing, how could anyone but God know for certain unless God told them? Should we even be making such decisions with regard to men rather than simply following God?

Those statements BY YOU simply meant not we can not KNOW which of the three was the most authoritative unless God told YOU? Or me? Or Joe? Or FHII? Or the Pope?.........If all 5 of us come up with a different answer and we all CLAIM that God told us which is the most authoritative that means that no man has authority to properly translate scripture or figure out which is the most authoritative. Every translation of scripture ever written means nothing and we know not the truth since ANYONE who claims that God or the Holy Spirit guided them is right. Your right. I'm right.... EVERYONE is right....even though we disagree with each other.

BTW.... I am "simply following God" and he told me you are wrong. How can we know for certain that those men were right? We never will, will we. We are forever in the dark and this is all a cruel trick by God. No one will ever know who is right and who is wrong....

Since I have already made up my mind on all these things???? What? Are you being serious??? Like you haven't already made up your mind on all these things???

What you really mean is your not going to change your mind and since you can't change my mind then you don't want to discuss it.

BTW... I don't care if you disagree. According to your theory my truth is just as valid as your truth. If I was to live by your theory as a Catholic I could tell the magisterium of the Catholic Church that they are wrong and I could be right....since nobody really knows The Truth. I could say murder is not a sin and I could be right.....since, according to your theory, nobody knows The Truth of scripture. Since God told me you were wrong and I was right I know I am right. Of course he also told you that I am wrong and your right so I suspect you THINK you are right also. Your theory kiddo, not mine.

I ASK YOU AMADEAUS: Does ANYONE know how to properly translate scripture and obtain The Truth from it???? If you can just answer that question with a logical answer I will be happy!!! A nice clear answer would prevent me from putting words in your mouth....

Have a great day...Mary

(I have a feeling I won't get a clear answer)

 

[Marymog]

It is very simple. The scriptures were written by those men lead by the Holy Spirit. It is a false statement that men put together the Bible by his own ideas. It was put together by men who were lead by the Holy Spirit. If lead by the Holy Spirit then it wasn't put together by man alone.

Now if you say it was put together by the ideas of man then our Bible is not the word of God and we are left with just another religion that has a book of rules for that religion and God does not exist except in the minds of men. IMO that is what our world has come down to..

Gen 6:3
3 And the Lord said,"My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."
NKJV

Ps 103:8-12
8 The Lord is merciful and gracious, Slow to anger, and abounding in mercy.
9 He will not always strive with us, Nor will He keep His anger forever.
10 He has not dealt with us according to our sins, Nor punished us according to our iniquities.
11 For as the heavens are high above the earth, So great is His mercy toward those who fear Him;
12 As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us.
NKJV

Thank you.

Can you give me the names of the men who put together the NT Bible and decided on which 27 books it would contain?

Mary

 

[aspen]

Thank you.

Can you give me the names of the men who put together the NT Bible and decided on which 27 books it would contain?

Mary

Martin Luther.....King James....?

 

[Marymog]

Martin Luther.....King James....?

Ding Ding Ding....We have a winner and it is aspen. You really do know your Christian History, don't you??

I deem these 27 books to be inspired by God and to be canonical; Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc. etc (quote from a letter of Martin Luther to the Church in Hamburg, December 1st, 1530)

Mary

 

[H. Richard]

Thank you.

Can you give me the names of the men who put together the NT Bible and decided on which 27 books it would contain?

Mary

Would that prove it was put together by men and that the Holy Spirit didn't have anything to do with it?

 

[Marymog]

Would that prove it was put together by men and that the Holy Spirit didn't have anything to do with it?

Hi friend,

That's what I thought.

Thank you.....sorry for wasting our time.

Mary

 

[amadeus]

Your statement may or may not be true. I don't know. You don't know. Only God knows if it's true.

The men who gave you the 27 books got the number of books right. They were infallible and led by the Holy Spirit at that time. But when they decided on how to properly interpret those 27 books, you disagree with them. Weird. How do you explain your inconsistency? Why were they infallible one day and fallible the next?

This is sometimes the reason that people sin. When they are being led by the Holy Ghost they are kept from sin. When they lead themselves they cannot help but sin.

"Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.
Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?
Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh." James 3:10-12

It is ought not to be so, but until we have overcome all of the obstacles between us and being the overcomer that Jesus is, we remain in a measure "double minded" and therefore in that measure unstable.

"Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded." James 4:8

Would you like to TRY and answer my PREVIOUS questions from my previous post? Or have I stumped you into silence?

I will try to answer, but only because I would like to help you. I may know the answers or some of my answers may seem wrong because I live by faith rather than knowledge. That means that sometimes I really do not know... but that's OK because God does and it is Him in whom I place my faith:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Heb 11:1

If you think by forcing a question on a person you will solve something, you are in error and may even be tempting God. Only God give any increase in the things of God.

Here they are, again:

When it comes to scripture and what it says on how one is saved.....when does opinion end and dogma begin?

You are using strange words to me. I don't live by opinion or by dogma when I am serving God correctly but by having faith in God and by following the lead of the Holy Ghost.

If (according to your theory) only God knows all these things then how do you know the bible you keep quoting from is complete? After all, it was man who gave us our 27 books of the NT and, as we know, man in fallible.

The Bible without the Holy Spirit quickening it to a person is dead, so I do not trust it alone until it is quickened within me. When or if I quench the Holy Spirit then I cannot get it all right.

 

[epostle1]

Talk about clinging on to a rotten albatross around your neck, and you refuse to let go of outdated irrelevant reformist rhetoric that's 500 years old. A MAJORITY of Protestant scholars today accept the primacy of Peter.

Peter's supremacy?

Didn't Paul rebuke Peter to his face?

So what? Peter was a hypocrite in that instance, and so Paul rebuked him. They had no differences theologically. Popes have been rebuked throughout history (e.g., by St. Catherine of Siena, St. Dominic, St. Francis). It doesn’t follow that they have no authority. Jesus rebuked and excoriated the Pharisees, but He told His followers to follow their teaching, even though they acted like hypocrites ((Matt 23:2 ff.).

You’re trying to set the Bible against the Church, which is typical Protestant methodology, and ultra-unbiblical. The Bible never does that.

Peter and the 11 had their role in ushering in the Kingdom, but Israel turned their back and the Holy Ghost led them away from an unsaved Jerusalem. The Kingdom plan failed and the gentiles were ushered in with Paul and Gospel of Grace - gentile salvation by Israel's fall, instead of their rise. This is why they did not replace James with another apostle when he was killed - God knew the 12 thrones would not be filled this time around. We never hear from Peter again after mid acts - just a few years after Paul's Gospel was set in motion - a change of guard if you will. There is no supremacy in man - all the apostles, Paul included, carried out their mission as directed by God. All paid the price; all are with God today, save one - Judas

You don't hear from Peter after mid-Acts because Peter was hunted by the pagan Romans, and from what little we know, Peter moved around a lot. It's impossible to construct early church history from the Bible alone but you do it anyway. The pagan Romans seemed to know who the leader of the church was, they killed the first 40 of them. But you deny there was a leader to begin with.

• Paul went to Peter, James, and John to verify the truth of his gospel. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Peter, James, and John did not go to Paul to check their gospel.

In Galatians 1-2 Paul is referring to his initial conversion. But even then God made sure there was someone else around, to urge him to get baptized (Ananias: Acts 22:12-16). He received the revelation initially and then sought to have it confirmed by Church authority (Gal 2:1-2); then his authority was accepted or verified by James, Peter, and John (Gal 2:9). So we see that the Bible doesn’t pit the divine call directly from God, against Church authority, as you do. You do it because it is Protestant man-made tradition to do so; period, and because the Protestant has to always undermine the authority of the Church, in order to bolster his own anti-system, that was set up against the historic Church in the first place.

We believe in faith that the Church is infallible and indefectible, based on many biblical indications. It is theoretically possible (speaking in terms of philosophy or epistemology) that the Church could stray and have to be rejected, but the Bible rules that out. We believe in faith that it has not and will not.

Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in an infallible Bible written by a bunch of sinners and hypocrites.

We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gift. We believe that the authoritative Church is also a key part of God’s plan to save the souls of men. We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas you guys reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.