|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/21/2008 11:47:26 AM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 750
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
Where the story of Peter, Disciples and Jesus took place was located at the foot of Mout Hermon, where, as a sparkling stream, the most eastern source of the Jordan River rushes out from a cave at the base of a great cliff and goes on to join other sources of the famous river. Being well watered, the place has a variety of trees, vines and flowering shrubs and is one of the most beautiful localities in the Holy Land. In the Old Testament times it had a shrine dedicated to Baal, while later Greeks built a shrine to Pan, the god of nature, and called the place Paneas (the city of Pan).
In the 20 B.C. Herod the Great built a white marble temple there and dedicated it to Augustus Caesar. At Herod's death the city fell to his son, Herod Philip. who enlarged and beautified the place and named it Casarea Philippi, in order to gain favor of his emperor, Tiberius Caesar, and to distinguish it from the better- known capital and seaport of Caesarea on the coast.
Today, masses of building stones, pieces of broken columns, and half buried arches are strewn over the site of the city. On the face of the great cliff around the grotto, from which emerges the stream, are several niches, and Greek inscription to the effect that "Pan and his Nymphs haunt this place"." Another inscription speaks of the "Priest of the god Pan."
A hoard of coins has been found. On one the pictured the syrinx or pipe of Pan; on another Pan leans on a tree playing his flute; on a third is shown the mouth of the cavern and Pan, within, playing the flute and on the fourth coin is the name of the city,"Caerarea Paneion."
High on the mountain, overlooking Caesarea Philippi, stands the Castle of Subeith surronded by walls ten feet thick, one hundred feet high, and strenghtened by numerous round towers, The interior of the old fortress is an uneven area of four or five acreas, dotted here and there by houses, cisterns, huge walls, and wide courtyards. The castle is old and worn by time and the elements, but is better preserved than many other castles in the area.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/24/2008 9:39:10 PM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 399
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Go figure: We do have a bishop who was appointed by God, but even more important is that our bishop answers to the Shepherd (a.k.a. "The Rock" and/or Jesus Christ) not to the 'pope' (or a 'prophet' or an 'apostle' or a 'machine', etc.)
Appointed by God? Really? How do you kwow? Did God come down and pick him to save everyone? Everyone "answers" in the end to Jesus and in the reality of today you and your bishop have free will to say whatever you want when it comes to interpriting scripture. So your bishop really only has to answer to himself. And you don't agree I suppose you will just leave to find another.
Otis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/24/2008 10:02:59 PM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 399
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Though this particular fact actually has nothing to do with what we're speaking about. In fact, if Peter, receiving a revelation of truth from God was somehow a reason for the institution of the papacy, then multiple millions the world over could be popes.
Well in fact lots of people do act more powerful than the Pope and many of them are found here at Crosswalk as they feel free to pronounce whatever doctrine they feel like.
More to point, you seem to think the Church somehow relies on one verse to say there is papacy. Or course there is nothing further from truth. No, Kelman this passage simply demonstrates that in fact it is Peter who is chosen by God as opposed to any of the others. It was well within God power to illuminate all of them at the very same time, but He didn't do that.
quote:
What, you think Peter and the other apostles didn't speak to each other....they didn't discuss everything they saw and heard from Christ? That's silly, of course, they did and they all agreed. Peter simply spoke what was believed by all of the them.
Now you are just adding your twist to scripture and it is taken out of context. You are just making things up not written down in scripture. Your implication that this detracts from the others is just mean spirited and shows you lack of real analysis.
quote:
Even Peter understood that the "rock" (metaphor for Christ) is Christ which, of course he would, since he revered the entirety of Scripture:
Stay in cotext Kelman. So what is it? Is Peter a pebble and by extension all the apostles and the Church (aka Augustine)? And the Church is build upon pebbles?? Or is the professed faith of Peter a rock? But that would not let Chirst be the rock? Did Christ make a hand jester back at Himself that is not recorded in scripture?
quote:
Yep, they did.
That wasn't my question. Peter alone was given the keys and you simply ignore that because you are only interested in fighting the Catholic Church.
I found no direct reference to money in Clements letter. Anyone without an agenda can plainly see Clement is "laying down the law" with brotherly love to a Church supposedly not under his control.
Otis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/24/2008 10:52:48 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 729
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: texastweet
quote:
Go figure: We do have a bishop who was appointed by God, but even more important is that our bishop answers to the Shepherd (a.k.a. "The Rock" and/or Jesus Christ) not to the 'pope' (or a 'prophet' or an 'apostle' or a 'machine', etc.)
Appointed by God? Really? How do you kwow? Did God come down and pick him to save everyone? Everyone "answers" in the end to Jesus and in the reality of today you and your bishop have free will to say whatever you want when it comes to interpriting scripture. So your bishop really only has to answer to himself. And you don't agree I suppose you will just leave to find another.
Otis
Yes... called by God and confirmed by the Holy Spirit! --- No, Jesus Christ was the only one picked to save everyone, silly! --- Yes, there is interpretation of scripture by our leader, and oddly enough, it actually follows scripture! (Weird, huh?) --- No, he will have to answer to God. (Says so in scripture.) --- No, if I disagree, I do what Gods instructions say to do: "Search scripture so that we may know the Truth!" Then, the Spirit leads from there. I know it's a bit alien coming from a church that tells you that you must favor the decisions of a human, (pope) even when God's own word says otherwise. But, Those popes will have to answer to God as well, so I'm not worried about it. I just need to focus on spreading His word, because it doesn't go out and return void.
_____________________________
"Discernment demands that we should hold biblical convictions with the most fervent tenacity" John MacArthur
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/27/2008 7:11:38 AM
|
|
|
Lurker
Posts: 678
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Glen Burnie, MD
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Papa-san
quote:
ORIGINAL: texastweet
quote:
Go figure: We do have a bishop who was appointed by God, but even more important is that our bishop answers to the Shepherd (a.k.a. "The Rock" and/or Jesus Christ) not to the 'pope' (or a 'prophet' or an 'apostle' or a 'machine', etc.)
Appointed by God? Really? How do you kwow? Did God come down and pick him to save everyone? Everyone "answers" in the end to Jesus and in the reality of today you and your bishop have free will to say whatever you want when it comes to interpriting scripture. So your bishop really only has to answer to himself. And you don't agree I suppose you will just leave to find another.
Otis
Yes... called by God and confirmed by the Holy Spirit! --- No, Jesus Christ was the only one picked to save everyone, silly! --- Yes, there is interpretation of scripture by our leader, and oddly enough, it actually follows scripture! (Weird, huh?) --- No, he will have to answer to God. (Says so in scripture.) --- No, if I disagree, I do what Gods instructions say to do: "Search scripture so that we may know the Truth!" Then, the Spirit leads from there. I know it's a bit alien coming from a church that tells you that you must favor the decisions of a human, (pope) even when God's own word says otherwise. But, Those popes will have to answer to God as well, so I'm not worried about it. I just need to focus on spreading His word, because it doesn't go out and return void.
I do find it interesting that when I searched the Scriptures I was eventually led to the Catholic Church, and others led away. But the Lord has a plan for us all. I know His plans for me mean that I am to become Catholic. :) When I search the Scriptures I find that they tell me to not only put my trust in them, but in the Church. It just took me a bit to figure out which Church the Scriptures refer to.
_____________________________
Do not be afraid of Christ! He takes nothing away, and he gives you everything. When we give ourselves to him, we receive a hundredfold in return. Yes, open, open wide the doors to Christ—and you will find true life.
-Pope Benedict XVI
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/27/2008 10:09:42 AM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 729
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
I really hope that even in my cynicism towards the institutions of the Orthodox churches, everyone understands that I believe a follower of Christ is just that... and therefore a brother or sister in the most amazing family anyone could imagine. I LOVE the people... Even the ones I scrap with here... 
I believe that the written word is 'alive', it is 'living'. It doesn't get 'taught' in the RCC. At least this is my experience. Yes, it is read, but not taught. There is a difference. I believe that the True Church of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with the 'organizations' that claim to be 'it'.
It is a relationship with our Savior. This is the true 'church' and it encompasses people in EVERY denomination, but NOT all of them. There are people who are lifelong churchgoers who are not members. There are people who have never darkened the doorstep of ANY church building that are closer to being an imitator of Christ than could be imagined by anyone other than His apostles.
Lurker, that you have found something that truly enhances your personal relationship with your Saviour is AMAZING, and I truly applaud it! In your study of scripture, you have been drawn to the thing that enhances your life: the Catholic Church. That self-same organization was nearly my demise! I was never led, urged, or inspired to read scripture. Every time I went, I spiritually died a little bit more. Finally, I had to walk away so I could begin to build a relationship with Jesus. There was NO way I could have done it there.
Every one of us is different, and our relationship with Jesus is just as unique. In my study of scripture, I see there a 'church' that has no resemblance to anything Orthodox. That, coupled with my own experiences there, was enough for me to know I was NOT a Catholic. This is why I can honestly say that I do not need a pope. My study of scripture shows me that the pope and the institution he is part of are something other than what is described to me in there... But not everybody has to see it that way. Whatever their personal beliefs are, they need to be true to those...
< Message edited by Papa-san -- 3/27/2008 11:16:48 AM >
_____________________________
"Discernment demands that we should hold biblical convictions with the most fervent tenacity" John MacArthur
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/27/2008 7:39:22 PM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 750
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
More to point, you seem to think the Church somehow relies on one verse to say there is papacy. Or course there is nothing further from truth. No, Kelman this passage simply demonstrates that in fact it is Peter who is chosen by God as opposed to any of the others. It was well within God power to illuminate all of them at the very same time, but He didn't do that.
Let us not forget who we are to illuminate in this world and it is no human being alive today or yesterday. But the one who created everything visibile and unvisible to the eye of man. Also God, if his words are true. Looks at all humans as the same. When they come to knowing him in a personal relationship.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/27/2008 11:11:09 PM
|
|
|
PeterD
Posts: 598
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline
|
Happy Easter,
I have a question relating to the apostle Peter who is claimed to be the first Pope.
Like Job,
Job 1:6-12
Satan Allowed to Test Job
6Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them. 7The LORD said to Satan, "From where have you come?" Satan answered the LORD and said, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it." 8And the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?" 9Then Satan answered the LORD and said, "Does Job fear God for no reason? 10Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. 11But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face." 12And the LORD said to Satan, "Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand." So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.
Luke 22:31-32
31"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers."
And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.
Are these brothers the sheep of the Roman Catholic Church?
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/28/2008 11:09:11 AM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 750
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
Peter,
quote:
And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.
Are these brothers the sheep of the Roman Catholic Church?
The first thing is that Peter was the giver of the good news to the Jews and Paul was to the Gentiles. Paul states this very clear in scriptures. Galatians 2: 7-9; " "On the contrary, they saw that I been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Peter, and John, those reputed pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recogonized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/29/2008 5:33:05 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5080
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: texastweet
Well in fact lots of people do act more powerful than the Pope and many of them are found here at Crosswalk as they feel free to pronounce whatever doctrine they feel like. Oh, please. RC has been pronouncing binding doctrines for a very long time which have absolutely nothing to do with God or His Word - stuff totally madeup out of whole cloth. There is no one here, or in fact anywhere, who invents religious doctrines quite so well as RC. They simply decide what they personally prefer to promote and go for it.
quote:
More to point, you seem to think the Church somehow relies on one verse to say there is papacy. The problem is it's the best one they have......and that's not saying much. God has made no provision anywhere for a papacy, it is simply a doctrine promoted by men who made a power grab over other bishops.
quote:
It was well within God power to illuminate all of them at the very same time, but He didn't do that. Now, this is something RC does better than anyone, as you've so aptly demonstrated....eisegesis... Who says the other Apostles didn't believe as Peter did? Talk about dragging personal bias through a passage. It's ridiculous to assert that they didn't believe exactly as Peter simply because it was Peter who first spoke the words. And it was the essence of these faithful true words that Christ built His church - not the person of Peter.
quote:
quote:
What, you think Peter and the other apostles didn't speak to each other....they didn't discuss everything they saw and heard from Christ? That's silly, of course, they did and they all agreed. Peter simply spoke what was believed by all of the them. Now you are just adding your twist to scripture and it is taken out of context. You are just making things up not written down in scripture.
Well it certainly isn't written in Scripture that the other Apostles didn't believe exactly as Peter did. It was simply that Peter was the one who spoke for them all which he often did. Apparently, you prefer to think they lived in a cave and had no contact with Christ.
Christ asked ALL(plural) of the Apostles "who do men say that I am" and THEY(plural) told Him....then Christ asked THEM(plural) "who do YOU(plural) say that I am". Then Peter spoke for THEM(plural). You guys like to use Peter speaking for all the Apostles as some evidence of "pope" - so own it - he spoke for them all here. Simply admit Peter spoke for THEM(plural) all here. Just read the chapter, nothing could be more clear.
quote:
Your implication that this detracts from the others is just mean spirited and shows you lack of real analysis. Mean spirited? ....lol....yep, yet another demonstration of the pot calling the kettle black. You guys really got that down pat.
quote:
quote:
Even Peter understood that the "rock" (metaphor for Christ) is Christ which, of course he would, since he revered the entirety of Scripture: Stay in cotext Kelman. Don't get more "in context" than that....Scripture is its own dictionary and interpreter so it's too bad you can't recognize it.
quote:
So what is it? Is Peter a pebble and by extension all the apostles and the Church (aka Augustine)? And the Church is build upon pebbles??
Or is the professed faith of Peter a rock? But that would not let Chirst be the rock? Why not just believe Peter when he called Christ the "petra" - not himself(1 Pet. 2:8)? We've been through this 100 times it seems; but, again here's my take on it: "Petra" denotes a mass of rock, as distinct from "petros", a detached stone or boulder, or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved.
A stone is movable, unstable and this is exactly what we see with Peter who doubted when he walked on water, who denied Jesus, and who was rebuked by Paul at Antioch.
Christ never said He would build His church upon a movable stone, that's just silly. No, Christ said His church would be built upon the Christ, Jesus, and it was this truth that Peter affirmed when he said "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God". This agrees everywhere in Scripture where "rock" is used referring to God - but never used of man.
Jesus will build his church; but elsewhere Paul and the apostles build it (1 Cor. 3:10). Jesus is the foundation of the church (1 Cor. 3:11); but the apostles and prophets are also the foundation (Eph. 2:19,20; Rev. 21:14). So even if for the sake of argument I was to concede concerning "rock" it would not be unique to Peter. We can see that plainly from these other passages.
It is clear that Christ alone is the true foundation and rock of the church. It is always the faithful doctrines of these men upon which the church is built - never their persons. Their teaching, their writing the Scriptures, their establishing and organizing the church, all were the necessary ways that Christ began to build His church.
Even to accept that Peter is the rock in question, which many do, does not in any way teach an apostolic succession, papal infallibility, or exclusive authority for successors of Peter. It's not to be found anywhere.
quote:
Did Christ make a hand jester back at Himself that is not recorded in scripture? Would that you had 1% of respect for the Word of God as you do for your denomination.
quote:
Peter alone was given the keys and you simply ignore that because you are only interested in fighting the Catholic Church. LOL...who's fighting? Actually, my only interest is truth - not the personally devised extrabiblical doctrines of RC. Though, I do enjoy demonstrating their many errors.
Peter may have received these "keys" first; but obviously all the apostles were given the same keys. Matter of fact, I like how Origen puts it:
"Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?"
quote:
I found no direct reference to money in Clements letter. Anyone without an agenda...... ....other than your own agenda, you mean.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/29/2008 8:29:09 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 168
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Hey all,
Been away. Came back to check in on you guys. Was mightily edified by Kelmanizer's reasoned and even-handed post and impressed by its irenic tone.
cordially
ferd
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/29/2008 11:42:29 PM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 399
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
RC has been pronouncing binding doctrines for a very long time which have absolutely nothing to do with God or His Word - stuff totally madeup out of whole cloth.
Does that include protecting the nature of Christ and the trinity?
quote:
Now, this is something RC does better than anyone, as you've so aptly demonstrated....eisegesis... Who says the other Apostles didn't believe as Peter did?
And you say they all believed the same thing as Peter was "blessed" with by God. You defy the plain words of Jesus. Yes he asked them all but it was Peter who answered and it is not implied that he was speaking specifically for all because of how Jesus responds. The other apostles aren't even mentioned by name in the entire passage. We have no idea what the others believe from the context of the passage. Yes Peter was indeed the "speaker" for the Church, but since Jesus singles him out as well as God the focus of the passage in clearly on Peter.
quote:
Why not just believe Peter when he called Christ the "petra" - not himself(1 Pet. 2:8)? We've been through this 100 times it seems; but, again here's my take on it: "Petra" denotes a mass of rock, as distinct from "petros", a detached stone or boulder, or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved.
Nobody is denying that Christ/God is also a rock. But jumping to another book is often refered to as taking things out of context and has no real bearing to Matt16. Yes it is your take since you will be hard pressed to find any academic support for greek analysis and you fail to even address the "aramaic" issue. In Kion Greek lithos is the word for a small stone anyway.
quote:
but the apostles and prophets are also the foundation (Eph. 2:19,20; Rev. 21:14).
So the chief "foundation" stone Peter is really a small stone easily thrown around in Matt16? So once again passages can't fit together in your approach. In Matt16 Peter is called a small stone that can be thrown about but now he is going to be a foundation??
quote:
It is clear that Christ alone is the true foundation and rock of the church. It is always the faithful doctrines of these men upon which the church is built - never their persons. Their teaching, their writing the Scriptures, their establishing and organizing the church, all were the necessary ways that Christ began to build His church.
I agree with all that except for the fact that you try to remove "men" from "the faithful doctrines of these men". How can you have one without the other?? You think by ackowledging Peter that we somehow detract from Chirst?? You readily admit Christ started an organized Church but then go on to bemone the fact the early Church establishes the means to do it by actually having an organization.
quote:
Peter may have received these "keys" first; but obviously all the apostles were given the same keys
Of course the others have "power" as well but as obviously ignore because it doesn't fit your approach, is the word "keys" is not used in reference to all the apostles.
Otis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/30/2008 4:00:50 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5080
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
Hey all,
Been away. Came back to check in on you guys. Was mightily edified by Kelmanizer's reasoned and even-handed post and impressed by its irenic tone.
cordially
ferd
Hi ferd, good to see you back.
Glad you recognize my even-handed approach. It's a perfect compliment to the other even-handed and irenic approaches :)
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/30/2008 4:03:07 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5080
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: texastweet
quote:
RC has been pronouncing binding doctrines for a very long time which have absolutely nothing to do with God or His Word - stuff totally madeup out of whole cloth. Does that include protecting the nature of Christ and the trinity? Hey, I didn't use the RC standard "from the beginning" bit....I said for a very long time. I have no problem giving credit where credit is due; yet, I won't put blinders on when something is declared to be true when, in fact, it is anti-thetical to Scripture.
quote:
We have no idea what the others believe from the context of the passage. But we do have an idea from the rest of Scripture because the same was given to all the apostles in Matthew 18. So, by comparing scripture with scripture, we can reasonably assume all the apostles believed the same . And, btw, this has reference to church discipline not to a papacy.
quote:
In Kion Greek lithos is the word for a small stone anyway. I never said "small stone". I did say what various lexicons reported concerning "petros" - a detached stone or boulder, or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved. As compared with "petra" which denotes a mass of rock, i.e., a mass of rock out of which a tomb is carved.
quote:
But jumping to another book is often refered to as taking things out of context and has no real bearing to Matt16. That is how one studies Scripture - by comparing scripture with scripture.
quote:
So the chief "foundation" stone Peter is really a small stone easily thrown around in Matt16? Where do you get that Peter is the chief foundation stone?...certainly not from Scripture. God says the only chief foundation stone is Jesus Christ.
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; -Ephesians 2:20
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. -1Corinthians 3:11
quote:
quote:
It is clear that Christ alone is the true foundation and rock of the church. It is always the faithful doctrines of these men upon which the church is built - never their persons. Their teaching, their writing the Scriptures, their establishing and organizing the church, all were the necessary ways that Christ began to build His church.
I agree with all that except for the fact that you try to remove "men" from "the faithful doctrines of these men". How can you have one without the other?? Easily.....because they received authority from Christ; but, we do not see an "office" instituted by the Lord designed to be passed on dynastically.
quote:
You think by ackowledging Peter that we somehow detract from Chirst?? We all acknowledge Peter; but, RC takes such a humongous leap from the way in which Scripture decribes his position as it relates to the other Apostles. The point is Christ didn't build His church upon a person - other than Himself, of course. What was commanded to be passed on was sound doctrine - not an office.
quote:
You readily admit Christ started an organized Church but then go on to bemone the fact the early Church establishes the means to do it by actually having an organization. The establishment of the church is outlined in Scipture; and, the only thing I bemoan is the fact that RC completely turned away from those principles.
quote:
quote:
Peter may have received these "keys" first; but obviously all the apostles were given the same keys
Of course the others have "power" as well but as obviously ignore because it doesn't fit your approach, is the word "keys" is not used in reference to all the apostles.
The other apostles have equal authority with Peter, that is clearly shown in Scripture - from the words of Christ Himself to the witness of the entire NT. What Origen said, and others as well, bears repeating:
"Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?"
Perhaps the real problem is an incorrecct understanding of exactly what "keys" means.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/30/2008 5:18:36 PM
|
|
|
Ezra
Posts: 1712
Status: offline
|
quote:
Peter alone was given the keys and you simply ignore that because you are only interested in fighting the Catholic Church.
If Peter alone was given "the keys", and Peter was the bishop of Rome accordinging to Catholic mythology, then why didn't Paul acknowledge this in his letter to the Romans, and why did he not give Peter some recognition in this epistle?
After all, Peter gave Paul ample recognition in his second epistle. On the other hand, Paul had to rebuke Peter for inconsistent Christian behavior. This would never be true for the man who held "the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven".
There is not a word in all the New Testament regarding Peter's connection to Rome. That is prima facie evidence that Peter has nothing to do with the papacy.
In any event, the papacy was derived from the heathen Roman priesthood, where the chief heathen priest was called Pontifex Maximus (a title which the pope continues to hold, and which means "Chief Pontiff"). Even the "keys" of the pope are derived from pagan practices.
How thankful we can be that we have God's Word in our hands instead of mere papal decrees. And the dissemination of the Scriptures was opposed by the popes until they had no choice. As Stephen said "Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost".
< Message edited by Ezra -- 3/30/2008 5:33:23 PM >
_____________________________
And whosoever will, let him take the Water of Life freely. Revelation 22:17
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/30/2008 11:11:13 PM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 399
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
But we do have an idea from the rest of Scripture because the same was given to all the apostles in Matthew 18. So, by comparing scripture with scripture, we can reasonably assume all the apostles believed the same
You mean just like how Thomas believed the same? Funny, the reading today was about how Thomas wouldn't believe it until he saw it himself.
quote:
And, btw, this has reference to church discipline not to a papacy.
Well who hands out the discipline?
quote:
I never said "small stone". I did say what various lexicons reported concerning "petros"
There may be debate about petros even though most have given up on trying to use it as a reason to say Peter is not the rock. In the first place if the writter of scripture wanted to contrast the two word lithos would have worked much better. Second, the very structure of v18 doesn't support your view. Matthew used the demonstrative pronoun "taute" which means "this very", so the verse says "you are peter and on taute petra (this very rock) I will build my Church." Matthew also uses "kai" ('and') as opposed to "alla" so the "this" is refering back to the first rock/Peter. He very well could have used a "but" or "alla" but he didn't because he was refering back to Peter. Finally, as is accepted by most Christ spoke in Aramiac and so there is only one word in Aramaic for rock and that is Kepha, which is name for Peter right from scripture.
quote:
Where do you get that Peter is the chief foundation stone?...
I was referring back to this part of your post: "Jesus is the foundation of the church (1 Cor. 3:11); but the apostles and prophets are also the foundation (Eph. 2:19,20; Rev. 21:14). "
Peter is an apostle right so he is also part of a foundation. I was trying to point out that on one hnad that in your view Peter is a smaller rock but then in contrast he is now part of the foundation. BTW, it also shows that two can be foundations, Christ and the apostles so why can't there be multiple rocks? In Isaiah 51:1-2 Abraham is refered to as the rock Isreal was hewn from. Chirst is the light and yet so our Christians?
quote:
but, we do not see an "office" instituted
Ever heard of Matthias? Oh, you have your excuse, but that with calling councils is the start of your "dynasty".
quote:
the only thing I bemoan is the fact that RC completely turned away from those principles.
How so? And is protestant anarchy the real way?
quote:
The other apostles have equal authority with Peter, that is clearly shown in Scripture
In many ways they do, but do a simple word search and you will see that Peter is a leader and as I've already mentioned he is called upon and picked out by Christ to uphold his brethen etc.
Why give the keys individually to Peter and skip the apostles in Matt16? Couldn't Christ have done it all at once?
Otis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/30/2008 11:55:48 PM
|
|
|
PeterD
Posts: 598
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline
|
Acts 28
Paul Arrives at Rome /Paul in Rome
17After three days he called together the local leaders of the Jews, and when they had gathered, he said to them, "Brothers, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans. 18When they had examined me, they wished to set me at liberty, because there was no reason for the death penalty in my case. 19But because the Jews objected, I was compelled to appeal to Caesar—though I had no charge to bring against my nation. 20For this reason, therefore, I have asked to see you and speak with you, since it is because of the hope of Israel that I am wearing this chain."
John 21:18-19
18 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go." 19(This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this he said to him, "Follow me."
Paul went to Rome and after Paul's death, Did Peter continue where Paul left off.
Where is it written in scripture where Peter died?
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/31/2008 5:06:48 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5080
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: texastweet
You mean just like how Thomas believed the same? Funny, the reading today was about how Thomas wouldn't believe it until he saw it himself. You know, maybe that's the problem - you had "a" reading. Thomas had difficulty believing that Christ rose from the dead. No way does that translate into his not believing exactly as Peter did. Btw, when RC was casting about for the "first" pope they should have considered Thomas since he was the FIRST of the Apostles to call Jesus Christ GOD.
quote:
Well who hands out the discipline? The elders and deacons of a church. Can't be a pope since God did not include such an office in all the Bible.
quote:
In the first place if the writter of scripture wanted to contrast the two word lithos would have worked much better. Christ had just personally twiced addressed Peter by use of the word "you". Had Christ wanted to convey what you want conveyed He simply could have said: "You are Peter, and on you the rock I will build My church - but He didn't.
The use of "taute" is not necessarily supportive of your view. It "could" mean this very; but, then again it is in no way definitive. Besides, it offers no clue as to the identity of the "rock". As for the Aramaic why bother since it is unverifiable?
So, no matter how you cut it the ambiquity lingers with regard to that particular verse. In any event, neither this verse or any other verse supports apostolic succession, papal infallibility, or exclusive authority for successors of Peter.
quote:
Peter is an apostle right so he is also part of a foundation. I was trying to point out that on one hnad that in your view Peter is a smaller rock but then in contrast he is now part of the foundation. BTW, it also shows that two can be foundations, Christ and the apostles so why can't there be multiple rocks? It is Peter's teaching and that of the other apostles and prophets - the scripture they penned for us which is the revelation of Jesus Christ who is the foundation. There can be only one foundation as Paul says in 1Cor 3:11 "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." Christ is the foundation upon which the building stands - His church.
quote:
Chirst is the light and yet so our Christians? Always, Christ is The Light we see this everywhere in the Bible, i.e., Psalm 27:1 “The Lord is my light.”. Christians are only the light of the world as they live and bring the Gospel of The Light. We simply reflect Christ as the moon reflects the light of the sun.
We find a similiar analogy in 1Peter 2:5 as it declares believers are stones "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."
quote:
quote:
but, we do not see an "office" instituted
Ever heard of Matthias? What's your point? He was chosen to replace Judas keeping the number twelve for a short period of time. When the Apostle James died they didn't choose another apostle - nobody succeeded him.
quote:
quote:
the only thing I bemoan is the fact that RC completely turned away from those principles. How so? And is protestant anarchy the real way? LOL....if I see some "anarchy" I'll let you know. Besides just as the Pharisees and other leaders in the church of Christ's day tossed out the apostles because they brought truth, so did your church toss out the Reformers who brought them truth.
quote:
quote:
The other apostles have equal authority with Peter, that is clearly shown in Scripture In many ways they do,... There is no scriptural evidence that Peter had any more authority than any other apostle. According to Scripture was he a leader?...yes....was he chief among the apostles?....yes....was he a prince?.....no.....was he the first pope?.....no.
quote:
Why give the keys individually to Peter and skip the apostles in Matt16? Couldn't Christ have done it all at once? I looked up the word "loose" as in "bind and loose" - luo - and it means to unbind, to loosen, to set free one who is in bondage, to destroy. So, it really has to do with the Gospel which is what sets men free from the bondage of sin and Satan. We see it used this way in 1John 3:8 and Revelation 1:5
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/31/2008 9:33:11 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 295
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
Kelman,
I think you need to rethink your statement about the "Reformers." Luther, Calvin, and Zwingly differed immensely with each other and argued various doctrines because they were not in agreement on them such as The Lord's Supper, Baptism, Mary, the role of the Church, etc.
I think this is what our Catholic brethren are trying to express when using the word "anarchy." As a very disillusioned Protestant, I would use the word chaos. What I see within Protestantism is lack of unity due to the various disagreements on a myriad of Christian doctrines. Crosswalk.com is just an example of such confusion. Disagreements on just about any Christian doctrine abound.
So which "Reformer" should the Roman Catholic Church listen to? I have found myself being confronted with this very same question.
HD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/1/2008 12:30:58 AM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 399
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
No way does that translate into his not believing exactly as Peter did.
I'm very impressed with your 2000 yr old mind reading. If they all thought the same in Matt 16 why did Christ single out Peter as the one who got the revelation from God?
quote:
Can't be a pope since God did not include such an office in all the Bible.
Well the pope is like the lead elder so I think you are just focusing on the word "pope".
quote:
Had Christ wanted to convey what you want conveyed He simply could have said: "You are Peter, and on you the rock I will build My church - but He didn't.
"on you the rock"? That sounds pretty odd. But Christ in fact does convey that if you can get over your "pretos" problem. "You are rock and on this rock I will build my church". Seems pretty straight forward.
quote:
As for the Aramaic why bother since it is unverifiable?
Do you mean like it wasn't a real language? Of course not, like anyone who is interested in the truth, one would want to reasonably assume people talked in the native language of the region. Some scholars think Matthew was actually first penned in Aramaic.
quote:
What's your point? He was chosen to replace Judas keeping the number twelve for a short period of time.
Nice addition to scripture--only for a short time? Did it come with a time period in Acts that I missed? I didn't know you were so focused on numerology?
quote:
There is no scriptural evidence that Peter had any more authority than any other apostle. According to Scripture was he a leader?...yes....was he chief among the apostles?....yes....was he a prince?.....no.....was he the first pope?.....no.
Well there it is for all to see...you plainly contradict yourself in two sentances. He is leader and chief but those appear to be empty titles since they have no authority?? A leader leads and a chief 'chiefs'.
quote:
ME: Why give the keys individually to Peter and skip the apostles in Matt16? Couldn't Christ have done it all at once?
YOU: I looked up the word "loose" as in "bind and loose" - luo - and it means to unbind, to loosen, to set free one who is in bondage, to destroy. So, it really has to do with the Gospel which is what sets men free from the bondage of sin and Satan. We see it used this way in 1John 3:8 and Revelation 1:5
Your answer has nothing to do with my specific question.
Otis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/1/2008 1:19:49 AM
|
|
|
PeterD
Posts: 598
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline
|
Happy Easter Heavendweller,
May I ask you a question...
In 1 Peter 5:13 who is "She" and also what is Peter referring to as Babylon in this Final Greeting?
1 Peter 5:12-14
Final Greetings
12With the help of Silas, whom I regard as a faithful brother, I have written to you briefly, encouraging you and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it. 13She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark. 14Greet one another with a kiss of love. Peace to all of you who are in Christ.
also,
in Genesis 10 this "proverb" Even as Nemrod the stout hunter before the Lord.
Genesis 10:8-10
8 Now Chus begot Nemrod: he began to be mighty on the earth. 9 And he was a stout hunter before the Lord. Hence came a proverb: Even as Nemrod the stout hunter before the Lord. 10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, and Arach, and Achad, and Chalanne in the land of Sennaar. (Douay-Rheims Bible)
Peter
< Message edited by PeterD -- 4/1/2008 7:22:00 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/1/2008 4:31:28 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5080
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Heavendweller
Kelman,
I think you need to rethink your statement about the "Reformers. What statement do you mean? They weren't tossed out and some killed? They brought no truth?
quote:
I think this is what our Catholic brethren are trying to express when using the word "anarchy." I wouldn't be too sure of that.
quote:
As a very disillusioned Protestant, I would use the word chaos. What I see within Protestantism is lack of unity due to the various disagreements on a myriad of Christian doctrines. Disagreement on what? The Lord's Supper, for instance? Contrary to RC doctrine this does not bring the forgiveness of sins so Protestant denoms have this absolutely correct. I don't call this "chaos" I call it being freed from the danger of a very serious error since forgiveness of sins occurred on the Cross - not on an altar. So, unless you think your sins are forgiven at a mass rather than at the Cross, I see no reason for disillusionment.
quote:
Crosswalk.com is just an example of such confusion. Disagreements on just about any Christian doctrine abound. This is true, different denoms teach different doctrines; but, a very important doctrine to be concerned with is that of salvation. And, in this, many Protestant denoms teach correctly, whereas, RC does not. What difference does it make, in the confines of this discussion, that Protestant denoms have various doctrines when most of RC's are wrong? So ten denoms teach ten different error filled doctrines. One RC denom teaches ten, twenty, fifty error filled doctrines...that is chaos.
quote:
So which "Reformer" should the Roman Catholic Church listen to? I have found myself being confronted with this very same question. A good start would have been to listen to Luther as he condemned them for selling the blood of Jesus Christ.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/1/2008 4:34:39 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5080
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: texastweet
quote:
No way does that translate into his not believing exactly as Peter did. I'm very impressed with your 2000 yr old mind reading.
As you must be impressed with your own extraordinary mind reading skills since you assert the opposite with no evidence on which to base your impression.
quote:
If they all thought the same in Matt 16 why did Christ single out Peter as the one who got the revelation from God? Uh, maybe because Peter was the one who spoke out? And, because Christ was about to give Peter a great honor that of being the first to bring the Gospel.
quote:
Well the pope is like the lead elder so I think you are just focusing on the word "pope". Well, that is very funny. I know of no "lead" elders who claim they are infallible and consent to be called by the name reserved for God Himself. Nor, did Peter call himself a "lead elder", no, he simply called himself "an elder"(1Peter 5:1).
quote:
"on you the rock"? That sounds pretty odd. Not at all, if that was what Christ wanted to convey. He twiced used the word "you". So why not a third?....if that was what He wished to convey.
quote:
quote:
As for the Aramaic why bother since it is unverifiable? Do you mean like it wasn't a real language? What an odd question. What is "unverifiable" is your assertion that Matthew was first in Aramaic. Since it is just a theory it is not relevant.
quote:
quote:
What's your point? He was chosen to replace Judas keeping the number twelve for a short period of time. Nice addition to scripture--only for a short time? Ah, so that's why RC does it ...they actually don't know what an "addition" to Scripture is.
quote:
Did it come with a time period in Acts that I missed? I didn't know you were so focused on numerology? Well, the book of Acts is chronological, you know. I suppose "short period of time" is relative; but, regardless, the fact remains when an apostle died - he was not replaced - the apostles had no successors.
In all of the instruction to the church - how it is to be run, governed, operated, and who is to lead, guide, and serve the church - there is never a word about an apostle or prophet. After Acts 15, the last time we know they ever met together, they are scattered all over the world and never appear again. Why? When they were gone, they were gone - period.
When James was martyred?....numerology?...lol..another funny one!
quote:
quote:
There is no scriptural evidence that Peter had any more authority than any other apostle. According to Scripture was he a leader?...yes....was he chief among the apostles?....yes....was he a prince?.....no.....was he the first pope?.....no.
Well there it is for all to see...you plainly contradict yourself in two sentances. My goodness, how could have I done such a thing? I'm truly horrified.....and, right there "for all to see".....lol.....
quote:
He is leader and chief but those appear to be empty titles since they have no authority?? A leader leads and a chief 'chiefs'. Who said it was a "title" other than you, of course? I certainly never did and neither does the Bible. No one ever denied that Peter was a chief apostle. But, Christ and the rest of the NT is abundantly clear, Peter had no authority above the other apostles.
quote:
quote:
ME: Why give the keys individually to Peter and skip the apostles in Matt16? Couldn't Christ have done it all at once?
YOU: I looked up the word "loose" as in "bind and loose" - luo - and it means to unbind, to loosen, to set free one who is in bondage, to destroy. So, it really has to do with the Gospel which is what sets men free from the bondage of sin and Satan. We see it used this way in 1John 3:8 and Revelation 1:5 Your answer has nothing to do with my specific question. Sorry, I didn't realize I had to spell it out for you. Since the keys represent the binding and loosing of man, it was Peter to whom Christ gave the privilege of being first to bring the message of salvation.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/1/2008 5:37:14 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 1172
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
There is an article in US News and World Report this month on Benedict XVI's visit to the U. S.
In typical Benedict XVI fashion, Benedict will be reaching out to to the US Church and attempting to establish and foster a greater relationship, however - at his Masses, no lay Eucharistic Ministers will be allowed, even though the numbers of Catholics attending will be in the tens of thousands. Its like he is reaching out to embrace the US, while slapping it on the back of the hand at the same time.
Interesting stuff.
As to some of the comments about Peter - Jesus instituted "Church" via the Apostles. Is this fact or do we deny this? Only when this point is conceded does it make sense to discuss administration and authority of the Roman Catholic Church.
If you do not believe the Jesus established the role of instruction and the spreading of the Gospel to the Apostles, then I would suggest THIS thread.
_____________________________
The dog regularly reads Atlantic Monthly
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 4/1/2008 10:02:55 AM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 399
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
As you must be impressed with your own extraordinary mind reading skills since you assert the opposite with no evidence on which to base your impression.
Kelman,
"We have no idea what the others believe from the context of the passage. " That is what I said so don't put words in my mouth. The apostles are often "clueless" at times about what Christ is talking about and He has to often explain things more than once.
quote:
I know of no "lead" elders who claim they are infallible and consent to be called by the name reserved for God Himself.
Well they just act like it. Do you have a bishop or elder btw? Really though, infallibility is another topic that can be discussed later but if one still clings to "pebbles" there is little hope of seeing infallibility. Even though you're perfectly all right in believing they were infallible in writing only and only for a short period of time...
quote:
What is "unverifiable" is your assertion that Matthew was first in Aramaic.
Is that all you got. Unwilling to examine the very reasonable position that there was common language behind the Greek? Do you ignore Hebrew as well?
quote:
but, regardless, the fact remains when an apostle died - he was not replaced - the apostles had no successors.
SO are you saying Judas didn't really die? And from our friend Clement in 80AD....
"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).
Here is Irenaeus as well..
"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
"but you are fellow citizens with the saints and the domestics of God, 20 Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone: 21 In whom all the building, being framed together, groweth up into an holy temple in the Lord." (Ephesians Chapter 2)
So I would ask, did the Church stop building? You need more than a foundation in order to have a house.
quote:
No one ever denied that Peter was a chief apostle.
So you say, but the word chief means nothing in your view and hence it is an empty qualifier/title.
quote:
Since the keys represent the binding and loosing of man, it was Peter to whom Christ gave the privilege of being first to bring the message of salvation.
Oh, I see now...suppose that is one way to look at it even though most commentaries are along these lines...
"In conferring upon Peter authority as head of the Church (Matt 16:19), Jesus uses the rabbinical technical terms `to bind' . . . and `to loose' . . . In rabbinic usage the terms mean `to forbid' and `to permit' with reference to interpretation of the law, and secondarily `to condemn' or `place under the ban' and `to acquit.' Thus, Peter is given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life (by virtue of revelation and the subsequent leading of the Spirit; Jn 16:13) and to demand obedience from the Church, reflecting the authority of the royal
chamberlain or vizier in the Old Testament (cf. Is 22:22)." (5:158) (Eerdmans Bible Dictionary)
So most would view this passage as to refering to Church authority and to sin per say and the "gospel message".
Otis
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
