1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Peter Was Never The Rock

Discussion in 'Bible Study Forum' started by JesusIsFaithful, May 17, 2017.

  1. JesusIsFaithful

    JesusIsFaithful Active Member

    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    50
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    I was referring to the Greek words that the King James was translated from at that link, but if you are one to heed anti-KJV prejudices all over the internet to put doubts in the meaning of God's words to side step that point, go ahead. I can't stop you.

    John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. KJV

    John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Petera]">[a]). NIV
    Footnotes:
    1. John 1:42 Cephas (Aramaic) and Peter (Greek) both mean rock.
    The ESV and the NASB and the Douay Rheims American edition ( normally a Catholic Bible reference ) has the rendering of NIV.

    Jesus has led me to rely on Him in understanding His words in the KJV rather than on modern Bibles since they are still trying to church out easier to read Bibles than the KJV. By His discernment, I have seen how the truth can get lost in translations in modern Bibles that it supports apostasy today. But only the Lord can show you that and why I rely only on the KJV for the meat of His words.
     
  2. Mungo

    Mungo Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,826
    Likes Received:
    94
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    That does no such thing.

    Why? are you of the Henry Ford school that "history is bunk".

    Sola scriptura is an unbiblical and illogical doctrine and I do not subscribe to it, nor did anyone for the first 1500 years of the Church's existence. Why should I start now?

    Here is the timeline:
    Peter starts in Jerusalem. He goes to Antioch and is bishop of Antioch for several years.

    At Pentecost we know that there were Jews from Rome and it is likely that some of them took the gospel to Rome. But the Church there needed an apostle to found it properly. And that apostle was Peter. In AD 42 James was killed by Herod Agrippa, who also arrested Peter. But Peter was miraculously released and then it concludes: Then he departed and went to another place.

    Catholic tradition says “another place” was a code for Rome. There is an ancient tradition that Peter went to Rome in 42 AD. Also the Liber Pontificalis records that Peter’s pontificate in Rome lasted for 25 years. As he was executed in 67 AD that ties in with the date of 42 AD.

    In Acts Peter is absent from Jerusalem from about 42 AD until 49 AD when he re-appears in Jerusalem at the Council of Jerusalem.

    Why? The answer is that in Rome in 49 AD there was much trouble in Rome and the Emperor Claudius expelled all the Jews from Jerusalem. The Roman historian Suetonius records that the Roman Jews were rioting abort “Chrestus”. Peter would have left as well. In Acts 18:2 we read that Aquila and Prisca were in Corinth “because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome”.

    In 54AD Claudius died, after which his edict was repealed, and the Jews returned to Rome. It is possible that Paul’s Epistle to the Romans was written at this time to reconcile the Jewish and Gentile Christians. It seems that without the Jewish quarrelling about “Christus” the Gentile Christian number had grown. Thus when the Jewish Christians returned the church there was faced with new controversies that Paul’s letter sought to address.

    Peter is thus the “other man” when he says to the Romans “thus making it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man's foundation”.

    There are many references in the early writing of Peter and Paul founding the Church in Rome.

    Finally another interesting point. The Liber Pontificalis says that Peter consecrated two bishops in Rome to assist him in governing the Church in Rome – Linus and Anacletus (Cletus). He also consecrated a third bishop, Clement, to see to oversee to needs of the universal Church.

    These are the first three that succeeded Peter – Linus, then Anaclectus and then Clement.

    Most of this I have taken from the book “The Eternal City – Rome and the Origins of Catholic Christianity” by Taylor Marshall, and Episcopalian priest who converted to Catholicism.

    Of course you will take no notice of this but others reading might find it interesting.
     
  3. Mungo

    Mungo Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,826
    Likes Received:
    94
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    I get it. If any translation differs from the KJV it must be wrong.
    KJV fanatics! :eek:
     
  4. PGS11

    PGS11 New Member

    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Peter said it because he loved the Lord and any thought of harm coming to Jesus hurt him- Jesus said "Get behind me satan" because what Peter proposed was not the Fathers will - Jesus used this moment to teach that it not our will but the fathers will that must be done. Not calling Peter satan.

    As for denying the Lord 3 times - the Lord also forgave him 3 times so Peter could forgive himself - Do you love me Peter? and Jesus said it 3 times.

    No Catholic is glorying in Peter thats complete bunk - thats your opinion. The Acts of the Apostles shows an authoritative church working guiding the faithful.
     
  5. JesusIsFaithful

    JesusIsFaithful Active Member

    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    50
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    No wonder the Catholic catechism hardly lines up with scripture with that perspective, but yet they will insist on key singular scripture out of context for their doctrines of enslaving the members to the Church.

    Your timeline is given out of quote box so the reader can read this.

    "Here is the timeline:
    Peter starts in Jerusalem. He goes to Antioch and is bishop of Antioch for several years.

    At Pentecost we know that there were Jews from Rome and it is likely that some of them took the gospel to Rome. But the Church there needed an apostle to found it properly. And that apostle was Peter. In AD 42 James was killed by Herod Agrippa, who also arrested Peter. But Peter was miraculously released and then it concludes: Then he departed and went to another place.

    Catholic tradition says “another place” was a code for Rome."

    That is an assumption from which ancient tradition may have based it on and thus without merit. Continuing with your timeline presentation below.

    "There is an ancient tradition that Peter went to Rome in 42 AD. Also the Liber Pontificalis records that Peter’s pontificate in Rome lasted for 25 years. As he was executed in 67 AD that ties in with the date of 42 AD.

    In Acts Peter is absent from Jerusalem from about 42 AD until 49 AD when he re-appears in Jerusalem at the Council of Jerusalem.

    Why? The answer is that in Rome in 49 AD there was much trouble in Rome and the Emperor Claudius expelled all the Jews from Jerusalem. The Roman historian Suetonius records that the Roman Jews were rioting abort “Chrestus”. Peter would have left as well. In Acts 18:2 we read that Aquila and Prisca were in Corinth “because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome”.

    In 54AD Claudius died, after which his edict was repealed, and the Jews returned to Rome. It is possible that Paul’s Epistle to the Romans was written at this time to reconcile the Jewish and Gentile Christians. It seems that without the Jewish quarrelling about “Christus” the Gentile Christian number had grown. Thus when the Jewish Christians returned the church there was faced with new controversies that Paul’s letter sought to address.

    Peter is thus the “other man” when he says to the Romans “thus making it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man's foundation”. "

    Again, you are assuming and reading that verse wrong too. Amazing how scripture can be done away with when it does not suit you in order to favor Catholic tradition. You are definitely reading that verse with Catholic tradition's bifocles on. Continuing with your timeline presentation below.

    "There are many references in the early writing of Peter and Paul founding the Church in Rome."

    You mean early writing ABOUT Peter and Paul founding the Church at Rome. Those references found at this Catholic site below just had them citing Matthew 16 mostly rather than give any historical account.

    Early Christian history  as seen by the  Roman Catholic Church

    So basically, the early writings based on reference to Matthew 16 in applying it, established ancient tradition by matter of opinions. Continuing on...

    "Finally another interesting point. The Liber Pontificalis says that Peter consecrated two bishops in Rome to assist him in governing the Church in Rome – Linus and Anacletus (Cletus). He also consecrated a third bishop, Clement, to see to oversee to needs of the universal Church.

    These are the first three that succeeded Peter – Linus, then Anaclectus and then Clement.

    Most of this I have taken from the book “The Eternal City – Rome and the Origins of Catholic Christianity” by Taylor Marshall, and Episcopalian priest who converted to Catholicism."

    Clement did not avoid the appearance of covetousness in his epistle to the Corinth. The dispute was the church at Corinth was not giving anything to the Church at Rome which Clement seems to place authority on them that they have to give; and thus accusing them of jealousy because Cleme nt was making all the churches do this in giving to the church at Rome.

    First Clement: Clement of Rome

    "1Clem 14:2
    For we shall bring upon us no common harm, but rather great peril, if
    we surrender ourselves recklessly to the purposes of men who launch
    out into strife and seditions, so as to estrange us from that which
    is right.
    "

    Paul had written that only a portion from the bounty was given to the support of the saints ministering abroad; jealousy has arisen when the church at Corinth found out that the Church at Rome was not collecting out of need, but from every church to the selfish gains of the church at Rome. Clement was trying to justify the giving to them by using verses about the ones that minister to them, and yet he was not there in person to apply that to himself as one that ministers to them, but sending collectors out for the treasury at the church at Rome. That was why they were jealous.

    Also the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes is about having a heirarchy over a chain of churches.

    Revelation 2:15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth

    Nicolaitanes as defined meaning "conquer of the laity" where in the doctrine is having a higher authority outside of the Word of God over each local church. So I understand why the church at Corinth was disagreeing with the Church at Rome.

    So.. from Clement onward, we can see how the Church at Rome went astray when all roads leads to Rome, and vying for the head bishop over all churches became a covetous position of governership that Jesus spoke against.

    Mark 10:42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

    Yes, I find it interesting on how Clement began the corruption at the Church at Rome where the gates of hades supposedly would not prevail against it.
     
  6. JesusIsFaithful

    JesusIsFaithful Active Member

    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    50
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Sticks and stones.

    For those interested in reading the exchange between Mungo & myself, consider this below when comparing the modern Bibles against the KJV.

    John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. KJV

    The KJV is giving the message about what Cephas means which is a stone.

    What you read next in those modern Bibles mentioned below. they are not giving the meaning of Cephas, but giving another name.

    John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Petera]">[a]). NIV
    Footnotes:
    1. John 1:42 Cephas (Aramaic) and Peter (Greek) both mean rock.
    The ESV and the NASB and the Douay Rheims American edition ( normally a Catholic Bible reference ) has the rendering of NIV.

    So you ask Jesus what the point of that message in John 1:42; to give another name for Cephas or to inform the reader what Cephas actually means?
     
  7. JesusIsFaithful

    JesusIsFaithful Active Member

    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    50
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    I do not believe Peter was Satan any more than believing Peter was the rock, but Peter was influenced by Satan enough for Jesus to tell Satan to get behind Him as in get out of Peter.

    Giving credit to someone else where it belongs to the Lord is how it comes across as exalting Peter above the Lord. By trying to exalt the Church at Rome, the Church at Rome is glorifying Peter so as to establish their authority over all christian churches.... which is the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes which God hates. Each local church were to have Jesus Christ as the Head of the church and thus the Word of God is the only authority and no outside earthy authority. Even the presbyter have gone astray.

    Like it or not, the churches are in trouble, and Revelation has never instructed any one to pay heed to the one true Church at Rome or to Peter, but to Jesus Christ as all invitations still points to Him for obtaining eternal life as He is our Saviour, and to Him as our Good Shepherd for help in living as His by abiding in His words as kept in the KJV; not to a church, not to a catechism, and not a pastor as all things should be proved by Him & by His words.

    We can only live this reconciled relationship thru Jesus Christ as He is the Bridegroom as we are to be the abiding bride of Christ by His grace & help.
     
  8. Mungo

    Mungo Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,826
    Likes Received:
    94
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    You ask "what the point of that message in John 1:42; to give another name for Cephas or to inform the reader what Cephas actually means?"

    Answer: It's both, because Petros is the name that Jesus gives Peter (Kepha) translated into Greek. And just as kepha means rock, so does petros mean rock.
     
  9. FHII

    FHII Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,524
    Likes Received:
    296
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    There is absolutely no Biblical or historical account to support your claim. Romans 15 doesn't say or even suggest that Peter was there first. In fact, the book as a whole suggest he wasn't.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2017
    JesusIsFaithful likes this.
  10. JesusIsFaithful

    JesusIsFaithful Active Member

    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    50
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Kepha was inferred, because of the Chaldean origin but not actually referring. This was done by errant Biblical scholars, apparently with the mindset of Roman Catholicism.

    The actual Greek used for Peter's name is not the same Greek spelling as the Greek word for rock is, and since in the KJV, the apostle John went to the trouble in telling us what Cephas means which is a stone, I disregard all modern Bibles translations.

    And anti-KJVonlyists used to accuse the Roman Catholic Church of changing the words in the KJV Bible to suit their doctrines.

    I am not of the KJVonlyism because of other erroneous statements being defined as KJVOnlyism as well as it doling out judgment on believers using other Bibles. I know believers can use other Bibles to spread the Good News.

    I also know that they can correct some false teachings by modern Bibles BUT I rely only on the KJV for the meat of His words because ALL modern Bibles have changed the meaning of His words that do not line up with the rest of the scripture in that modern Bible... like John 16:13 as opposing the errant translation of Romans 8:26-27 as found in all modern Bibles, except for the KJV that has the truth in John 16:13 lining up with Romans 8:26-27 that the Holy Spirit cannot use tongues for making His intercessions because His intercessions are unspakable as Another is needed by knowing the mind of the Spirit as He that searches our hearts ( Romans 8:27 referring to Hebrews 4:12-16 ) is the One giving the Spirit's unspeakable intercessions to God the Father which is in according to the will of God of there being only One Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. ( 1 Timothy 2:5 )

    So that is why I rely only on the KJV; not because of KJVOlyism, but because there can be no lie of the truth in His words as Jesus has confirmed His words to me as kept by those who loved Him & His words whose source documents originated from Antioch where His disciples were first called christians;

    Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

    Modern Bibles's source documents originate from Alexandria where poetic licensing and gnosticism had been known to exists, and so if there were any doubts in His words to the actual meaning between modern Bibles and the KJV, I rely on the KJV only... thanks to Jesus Christ as my Good Shepherd.
     
  11. kepha31

    kepha31 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,634
    Likes Received:
    97
    Country:
    Canada
    So what. That doesn't mean Satanists are RUNNING the Vatican, which is what you implied. Vatican is a city/state, lots of room for wackos. Besides, since the Vatican is satans' #1 enemy, you can expect such sects to gravitate there and attack the Church in numerous ways. But they are not there by invitation.

    No, there is no "whole claim"" of Peter as the ROCK in one verse. Peter is leader and spokesman for all the apostles all over the NT.
     
  12. kepha31

    kepha31 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,634
    Likes Received:
    97
    Country:
    Canada
    It doesn't matter who was in Rome first. Peter was the Prince of the Apostles, the First Among Equals. Even if Peter got to Rome 20 years after Paul, Peter would still have primacy. "Disproving" the papacy by disproving Peter in Rome is a joke. His location has no bearing on his office.
    But Peter and Paul preached the same gospel, they were not competitors.
    A church cannot be established without a bishop.

    Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you. They were apostles and I am a convict. They were free, and I even to the present time am a slave. —Ignatius Letter to the Romans, Ch 4​
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2017
  13. kepha31

    kepha31 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,634
    Likes Received:
    97
    Country:
    Canada
    Isaiah 22: 19 I will thrust you from your office, and you will be pulled down from your station.

    Shebna is described as having an "office" and a "station." An office, in order for it to be an office, has successors. In order for an earthly kingdom to last, a succession of representatives is required.

    This was the case in the Old Covenant kingdom, and it is the case in the New Covenant kingdom which fulfills the Old Covenant. Jesus our King is in heaven, but He has appointed a chief steward over His household with a plan for a succession of representatives.

    Isaiah 22:20 In that day I will call my servant Eli'akim the son of Hilki'ah,

    Isaiah 22:20 - in the old Davidic kingdom, Eliakim succeeds Shebna as the chief steward of the household of God. The kingdom employs a mechanism of dynastic succession. King David was dead for centuries, but his kingdom is preserved through a succession of representatives.

    Isaiah 22:21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.

    Isaiah 22:21 - Eliakim is called “father” or “papa” of God's people. The word Pope used by Catholics to describe the chief steward of the earthly kingdom simply means papa or father in Italian. This is why Catholics call the leader of the Church "Pope." The Pope is the father of God's people, the chief steward of the earthly kingdom and Christ's representative on earth.

    Isaiah 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.

    Isaiah 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.

    Isaiah 22:23: And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house.

    Revelation 1:18; Revelation 3:7; Revelation 9:1; Revelation 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."

    Matt. 16:19 - whatever Peter binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven / when the Prime Minister to the King opens, no one shuts. This "binding and loosing" authority allows the keeper of the keys to establish "halakah," or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves.

    Jeremiah 33:17 For thus saith the Lord: There shall not be cut off from David a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel.

    Jeremiah prophesies that David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the earthly House of Israel. Either this is a false prophecy, or David has a successor of representatives throughout history.

    Dan. 2:44 But in the days of those kingdoms the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, and his kingdom shall not be delivered up to another people, and it shall break in pieces, and shall consume all these kingdoms, and itself shall stand for ever.

    Daniel prophesies an earthly kingdom that will never be destroyed. Either this is a false prophecy, or the earthly kingdom requires succession.
     
  14. JesusIsFaithful

    JesusIsFaithful Active Member

    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    50
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Paul had to rebuke Peter so it all boils down to scripture .. the Word of God.. aka the Lord Jesus Christ as the Head of the church and over every head of the believer.

    Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

    But you guys have bought the RCC's lie to rely only on them for the final authority of understanding the scripture. The apostle John says otherwise.

    1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.....25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life. 26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.

    He is in you. You have eternal life. Believe Him. Not the RCC.

    Even the apostle James told you to ask God for wisdom.

    James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

    Paul explained it further Who you are to go to Whom is alone at that throne of grace.

    Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

    Scripture points you to go to Jesus for life and for wisdom; not to a church.

    John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

    Don't let the RCC come inbetween you and the Lord Jesus Christ. You are the bride and He is the Bridegroom. There is no stepping stone to Him when God the Father provided the only way to come to Him and that is by way of the Son. There is no other invitation in coming to God by.
     
  15. kepha31

    kepha31 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,634
    Likes Received:
    97
    Country:
    Canada
    Of course Jesus is the head of the Church, how does that stop Him from appointing an earthly head? He doesn't have the authority??? Are Daniel and Jeremiah false prophets? You've made no reply to post #53.
    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 ).
    You bought an anti-Catholic lie. A final authority does not mean nobody else can read and understand scripture. Every heretic in history went by "bible alone" like the ones in the first 4 centuries who attacked the Trinity. That's why they had the Councils of Nicae, Ephesus, Chalcedon and Constantinople. Individual bible readers did not have the final authority to resolve disputes caused by bible alone heretics. The Church does. But there haven't been scriptural disputes for centuries, that's for Protestants.
    John says they have already been taught the truth. "concerning them that seduce you" refers to the Gnostics who denied the Incarnation in 1 John 4:3. "ye need not that any man teach you" doesn't mean each individual bible reader doesn't need teachers, it means divine revelation comes from God to Jesus who reveals it to the Apostles and their successors. Jesus commissioned the Apostles to teach all nations, not private individual bible readers. Does a congregation teach the pastor?
    You don't need to be so insulting. You wouldn't like it if I ripped your church founders to shreds, if you even have a church. You seem quite anti-church to me, a common tradition in non-denom circles... Jesus promised to be with the "RCC" forever. You have no date when He left us and went back on His promises. Everything you believe that is true came from the "RCC". Please use CC, RCC refers to only one rite out of 23.
    Matthew 18:17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. There is no point in having a church according to you.
    Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God...where does this verse confine the Word of God to the written word alone? Do a bible search for "word of God". Nowhere does it mean the written word alone.
    Bad context.
    38 and you do not have his word abiding in you, because you do not believe him whom he has sent.
    39 “You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. 40 Yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

    Jesus was scolding the Jews for not believing in Him even though they "searched the scriptures". This verse refutes sola scriptura. And Jesus founded an authoritive, hierarchical, supernatural, infallible, monarchical CHURCH, not JUNK only to fall apart later.. He founded it so the Church would teach us and lead us to Him...unless you think His commissioning the Apostles was a waste of time.
    You are obfuscating His role as sole mediator with unbiblical polemics. Your family, your fellowship, your pastor has nothing to do with you coming to God??? 95% of what you have been told or read about the CC is false. See what the CC says about Jesus, and it ain't all there is.

    30. The lack of a definitive teaching authority in Protestant (as with the Catholic magisterium) makes many individual Protestants think that they have a direct line to God, notwithstanding all of Christian Tradition and the history of biblical exegesis (a "Bible, Holy Spirit and me" mentality). Such people are generally under-educated theologically, unteachable, lack humility, and have no business making presumed "infallible" statements about the nature of the "RCC". 150 Reasons Why I'm Catholic (You Should Be Too!)
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2017
  16. Marymog

    Marymog Active Member

    Messages:
    683
    Likes Received:
    58
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Greetings,

    Who do YOU rely on for your "final authority of understanding the scripture"?

    Respectfully......Mary
     
  17. ScottA

    ScottA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    931
    Likes Received:
    330
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    The point is...only Jesus has the authority. As the Lord himself said, "And I will pray the Father, and He will give you Another Helper (meaning One), that He may abide with you forever—" - not: another, and another, and another...
     
  18. Marymog

    Marymog Active Member

    Messages:
    683
    Likes Received:
    58
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Hi Scott,

    It seems to me you are saying that Jesus was the earthly head (leader) of The Church when he was alive and after his death there was no leader of The Church and there never will be?

    Mary!!
     
  19. kepha31

    kepha31 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,634
    Likes Received:
    97
    Country:
    Canada
    The earthly head of the Church (another, and another, and another...) does not replace the Holy Spirit. That is an anti-Catholic myth. Regarding post #53, are Daniel and Jeremiah false prophets?

    6. Catholics don’t put the Church above God any more than Protestants put the Bible above God. We think God guides the Catholic Church (just as Protestants and Catholics both agree that God guided and inspired the Bible-writers; but infallibility is a far lesser gift than inspiration).

    7. Even if we grant this invisible church, the problem remains of identifying the doctrines of this ethereal, nebulous, mysterious entity. And until the Protestant can do that, it is folly and a pipe dream to pretend it is a foundation or support of “truth” (1 Tim 3:15). It is playing games with reality and logic and the Bible.

    9. And why must Church be pitted against Scripture as if the two are unalterably opposed and cannot be synthesized? This is not the way that the Bible presents the relationship between the two, or between Scripture and tradition. Why is it impermissible to believe (in faith) in a harmony between the three and a protection by the Holy Spirit from error?

    14. The Jerusalem Council as described in Scripture, is a crystal-clear instance of infallible Church authority. Therefore, since Scripture is infallible (and “conservative” Protestants agree), Catholics do not have a fallible belief about infallible authority, but clearly an infallible belief about infallible authority. That’s self-consistent; it’s based on clear and explicit Scripture, which is more than we can say about Protestants in the present conundrum.

    20. Believing in an infallible Church does not in any way, shape, or form, require some sort of autonomy from God. We’re not the final authority: God is. We believe in faith that He guides His Church. Protestants appear to lack the faith to believe that God could or would do that, which is really the fundamental problem in this discussion: can God do that and would He do it, and did He do so? He certainly did in the Jerusalem Council, recorded in Acts 15, so why is it so unthinkable to hold that He continues to guide His Church? We’re not orphans . . .
    25 Arguments Regarding Binding Church Authority
     
  20. JesusIsFaithful

    JesusIsFaithful Active Member

    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    50
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    The Lord Jesus Christ, our Saviour AND Good Shepherd. Trust Him for the wisdom in understanding His words as kept by those who loved Him & His words in the KJV Bible.

    1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.

    James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

    Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

    1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. 25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

    Respectfully, JesusIsFaithful
     
Loading...