Does the Roman Church focus on Peter too much

[SwissGuard]

It could then, be equally argued, that you are including possible meanings, because what YOU have been taught.

Wouldn't the question then be: Who is our teacher?

Should it be the 2000 year old Church, or our own flawed personal ideas, seasoned with a culture 2000 years removed from the men who walked with Christ?

 

[SwissGuard]

Ulster Protestant Interrupts Pope, Yelling 'Antichrist!'

NEW YORK TIMES
Published: October 12, 1988

LEAD: Pope John Paul II was interrupted at the beginning of a speech to the European Parliament today by the Rev. Ian Paisley, the Northern Ireland Protestant politician, who noisily denounced him as ''the Antichrist.''

Pope John Paul II was interrupted at the beginning of a speech to the European Parliament today by the Rev. Ian Paisley, the Northern Ireland Protestant politician, who noisily denounced him as ''the Antichrist'.'

The incident occurred on the final day of the Pope's four-day visit to the Alsace-Lorraine region. John Paul used his address to the European Parliament, the legislative body of the 12-member European Community, to voice strong support for steps toward European economic and administrative union, and to call for greater attention to common Christian values.

Moments after the Pope began to speak, Mr. Paisley, a member of the European Parliament from the Democratic Unionist Party, stood up holding a red poster saying, ''Pope John Paul II - Antichrist,'' and began shouting, ''I renounce you as the Antichrist!''

Wonderful.

source: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE5DA1731F931A25753C1A96E948260

 

[Uphill Battle]

[bible]luke 22:31-32[/bible]

right. and I'm aware of that passage. I'm taking about the totality of the NT. It doesn't point to one person strengthening and encouraging the masses. It speaks of the individual responsiblity of each Christian to do that for their brothers and sisters.

I understand that. So, I am encouraged to accept the historical readings of these passages, rather than ignoring meanings to justify the existence of my religious belief.

Another if/then. I could say that I am encouraged to accept these passages, rather than inserting meanings to justify the existance of my beliefs.

frankly, we won't get anywhere with that line of thought.

I can accept that many things are true and can be read from Bible verses, I just object to unnecessarily cutting off meanings to justify oneself. Sort of like... Jesus discussion of marriage and adultery.

or.... adding meanings.

Wouldn't the question then be: Who is our teacher?

Should it be the 2000 year old Church, or our own flawed personal ideas, seasoned with a culture 2000 years removed from the men who walked with Christ?

If the church could stand up to scrutiny, yes. As of now, it has not done so in my estimation. Good concience dictates that I could not accept it.

Wonderful.

source: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE5DA1731F931A25753C1A96E948260

a bit old, and irrelevant, don't you think?

 

[fated]

right. and I'm aware of that passage. I'm taking about the totality of the NT. It doesn't point to one person strengthening and encouraging the masses. It speaks of the individual responsiblity of each Christian to do that for their brothers and sisters.



Another if/then. I could say that I am encouraged to accept these passages, rather than inserting meanings to justify the existance of my beliefs.

frankly, we won't get anywhere with that line of thought.


or.... adding meanings.


If the church could stand up to scrutiny, yes. As of now, it has not done so in my estimation. Good concience dictates that I could not accept it.


a bit old, and irrelevant, don't you think?

One does not "add meanings."

 

[Uphill Battle]

One does not "add meanings."

certainly one does. People do it all the time.

take for instance, a certain group of people who adhere to the pentecost speaking in tongues. a certain portion of the people add the meaning of the toungue of flame being the evidence of being a Christian. If you don't see one, you ain't one.

added meaning.

 

[mont974x4]

certainly one does. People do it all the time.

take for instance, a certain group of people who adhere to the pentecost speaking in tongues. a certain portion of the people add the meaning of the toungue of flame being the evidence of being a Christian. If you don't see one, you ain't one.

added meaning.

or transub
mary the sinless ever virgin
popes
teetotalism
dress codes



the habit of adding stuff often leads to legalism and almost always elitism

 

[ScottBot]

or transub
mary the sinless ever virgin
popes
teetotalism
dress codes



the habit of adding stuff often leads to legalism and almost always elitism

You forgot reading and interpreting the bible for yourself.

Oh wait, Catholics don't do that.

Sorry, carry on, you were saying something about our made up stuff?

 

[SwissGuard]

or transub
mary the sinless ever virgin
popes

All Biblical and true

teetotalism
dress codes

teetotalism? Catholics can drink, so I don't understand that one.
dress codes? Priestly garb is not doctrine, just custom.

 

[fated]

certainly one does. People do it all the time.

take for instance, a certain group of people who adhere to the pentecost speaking in tongues. a certain portion of the people add the meaning of the toungue of flame being the evidence of being a Christian. If you don't see one, you ain't one.

added meaning.

I suppose, however, I need to point out that the RCC interpretation historically precedes your interpretation, and the RCC is evidence it precedes the Bible itself.

 

[Uphill Battle]

All Biblical and true

teetotalism? Catholics can drink, so I don't understand that one.
dress codes? Priestly garb is not doctrine, just custom.

I don't think Teetotalism was meant simply for Catholics. It was a list of "added meanings. If you're to be offended, stick to the first 3.

 

[Epiphanygirl]

This was mentioned in another thread by a RC concerning the Peter and Paul of the NC in the Bible.
Questionoes the Roman Church put too much focus on the Peter and not enough on the Paul. Thoughts?

Originally Posted by JacktheCatholic
I can understand why gentiles would hold a special affection towards Paul vs. Peter.

But we all know that Paul did not receive the Keys either in scripture.

Originally Posted by Albion
How in the world does no keys to Peter lead to no New Testament when the record of Christ speaking to Peter in in the New Testament? The one surest thing in all of Christianity is the Bible. It is eternal and never-changing, even if men may change their views of it. That is what everything comes from and why Protestantism, like it or not, is always relevant--that is to say, because it always can point back to the Word of God himself, the God who cannot be wrong in his revelation, and see what it says.

How much different is this from those churches which follow some constantly evolving stream of ideas and are cut loose from that which ultimately is our sure foundation.

I don't know.........I don't go around talking about St. Peter all day long......I don't any of us do unless we're asked......it usually falls along the lines of the whole Papacy issue that non-Catholics have.

 

[namericanboy]

What is interesting is that they chose purple and scarlet of all the colors..

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I suppose, however, I need to point out that the RCC interpretation historically precedes your interpretation, and the RCC is evidence it precedes the Bible itself.

Do ya think Adam and Eve were the first "Catholics" then?

Acts 13:29 As yet they finish all-things the about Him having been written/gegrammena <1125> (5772) according-lifting from the wood they place into a tomb.

Revelation 1:3 Blessed the one reading, and the ones hearing, the Words of the Prophecy, and keepings in it/her having been written/gegrammena <1125> (5772), for the Time Is-Near/egguV <1451>.

 

[namericanboy]

Originally Posted by fated
I suppose, however, I need to point out that the RCC interpretation historically precedes your interpretation, and the RCC is evidence it precedes the Bible itself.

Boy isn't that the truth, but I won't comment what they brought to Christianity..

 

[ScottBot]

What is interesting is that they chose purple and scarlet of all the colors..

They are traditional liturgical colors. If you are gonna make assumptions about the use of liturgical colors, we're gonna have to drag the EO, OO, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Methodists in here.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

What is interesting is that they chose purple and scarlet of all the colors..

nevermind...

 

[Uphill Battle]

I suppose, however, I need to point out that the RCC interpretation historically precedes your interpretation, and the RCC is evidence it precedes the Bible itself.

and? So is EO. So is Lutheranism. So is a great many.

all claiming to be the one true. (more or less.) I have found no reason to believe the RCC claims any more than that of EO... and with a quagmire of half truths to sift through, I rather doubt I will.

 

[holdon]

They are traditional liturgical colors. If you are gonna make assumptions about the use of liturgical colors, we're gonna have to drag the EO, OO, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Methodists in here.

Could there be any link to this verse?:

"And the woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and had ornaments of gold and precious stones and pearls" Rev 17:4

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by namericanboy
What is interesting is that they chose purple and scarlet of all the colors..

nevermind...

http://foru.ms/showthread.php?p=33730992#post33730992

Luke 16:19 A-Man, yet any, was rich, and clothed/enedidusketo <1737> (5710) purple and linen/busson <1040> making-merry down to a-day, shiningly

James 5:3 The gold of ye and the silver is cankered; and the rust/venom of them into a witness to ye, and shall be eating the fleshes of ye as fire. Ye hoard in last days.

 

[fated]

Do ya think Adam and Eve were the first "Catholics" then?

Acts 13:29 As yet they finish all-things the about Him having been written/gegrammena <1125> (5772) according-lifting from the wood they place into a tomb.

Revelation 1:3 Blessed the one reading, and the ones hearing, the Words of the Prophecy, and keepings in it/her having been written/gegrammena <1125> (5772), for the Time Is-Near/egguV <1451>.

I meant the NT, sorry, I was arguing with an atheist on another thread.