Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I personally love the "Peter is more important because of the number of times he's mentioned" argument
I personally think Peter was more like a President of a City Council. All the of the council members are equal but you have the President to be the voice and to sort of hold everyone to the same page.
would you say that would be in line with E. Orthodox views on Peter?
Orthowiki says Peter was the leader of the Apostles.
LLOJ once again heads 4 the wikiThere's different ideas of 'leadership' though. I think a great many are confused because of their coming from a presidential system where the President is not just leader, but head of state, and head of government.
I prefer to think of Peter in much the same way as the Queen is the head of the Commonwealth. She's the visible source of unity and tradition, but she doesn't have de jure headship over some nation-members which are in fact republics, such as India, or Pakistan.... though in her own right she is de jure leader of a limited area.
The way it looks, that is strictly more of a RC view, but not really sureI personally think Peter was more like a President of a City Council. All the of the council members are equal but you have the President to be the voice and to sort of hold everyone to the same page.
would you say that would be in line with E. Orthodox views on Peter?
Orthowiki says Peter was the leader of the Apostles.
EO doesn't "hate Rome"...just view Rome as a slightly wayward brother that stomped off when he didn't get his own way.Hating Rome trumps all.
Tis a more gentle way of putting itEO doesn't "hate Rome"...just view Rome as a slightly wayward brother that stomped off when he didn't get his own way.
Tis a more gentle way of putting it
Greetings. I see the peter and pope threads are being discussed ad-nauseam again so I would like to make a simple poll for ALL denominations to answer. I am not talking about if he was simply a Bishop of Rome and only for that city but a Grand Pope of all Christianity.
So this poll is quite simple "CAN CHRISTIANITY SURVIVE TODAY WITHOUT THE POPE/PAPACY OF ROME"
Hi Jack!Oh yeah! Here we go...
Has this been answered?
Tis getting near the great SplitThis old thing... still going on... LLOJ This is amazing
##Well, the whole idea of a 'pope' was borrowed from pagan religion. God's church, founded upon the Word of God, the Bible, is doing very well without a pope.
Dave
##What God could do =///= What God has done.So then God, who could make children of Abraham out of rocks, could not unhold His children by His very breath? It as to be held up by the hands of men? Where was men when God created them? The church is not built on Peter.. Tee hee the church is built upon the very Fact that Christ is who He says He is and that His death and ressurection is the very core of the new covenant. Peter is not the new covenant.. Jesus shed blood for the sins of men is.
Me neither. When ya find out, let us know##What God could do =///= What God has done.
As matters have in fact been arranged, God has entrusted the salvation of the world to secondary causes, through which He always works. He is always at work - through them not least.
Some people's salvation will depend on the Bible - they may have no other means of knowing of God. Yet the Bible is less important than the Pope, because the Pope is made in the image of God, & the Bible is not. Abstractly speaking, the Bible is superfluous - this follows from your own reasoning. Why bother with a book, when God is so much better & more important ? Even Fundamentalists don't believe in salvation by the ink of Exodus, or justification by the grace of Acts 21. They believe - or say they believe - in Christ. If Catholics are idolaters, as Fundamentalists insist, Fundamentalists are Bibliolaters: they adore a book instead of the One to Whom it is meant to point. If Fundamentalists can get away with accusing Catholics of Pope-worship - Fundamentalists must expect to be accused of idolatry, such as Bible-worship. Make one accusation - & get one free.
There is so much wrong with the Bible anyway. Your reasoning against the Pope may rule him out; but it also rules out the Bible. Only inconsistency knocks out Pope, Bishops, Church, Doctrine & Sacraments, while sparing the Bible. The Bible is not a moral agent, so it cannot sin, unlike a person - but it is sinful in other ways: so by that analogy, objections to the ministers to God's ministers because of their sinfulness, are, if decisive, equally decisive against the Bible, which is a storehouse of sin. If the Bible is God, then it can't be ruled out. But only if it is God can it escape being a created means of grace. Are there Christians who think God is the Bible, & the Bible, God ? I don't know.
yeah but ONE MAN is not more important than other in God's salvation plan... or then we are not all created equal...]##What God could do =///= What God has done.
As matters have in fact been arranged, God has entrusted the salvation of the world to secondary causes, through which He always works. He is always at work - through them not least.
ONLY the Pope is created in the image of God?? strange statement to say the at least *scratches head*... The Bible is NOT made in the image but is regardless the word of God written by men who are created in the image of God...*Some people's salvation will depend on the Bible - they may have no other means of knowing of God. Yet the Bible is less important than the Pope, because the Pope is made in the image of God, & the Bible is not.
Abstractly speaking, the Bible is superfluous - this follows from your own reasoning. Why bother with a book, when God is so much better & more important ? Even Fundamentalists don't believe in salvation by the ink of Exodus, or justification by the grace of Acts 21. They believe - or say they believe - in Christ. If Catholics are idolaters, as Fundamentalists insist, Fundamentalists are Bibliolaters: they adore a book instead of the One to Whom it is meant to point. If Fundamentalists can get away with accusing Catholics of Pope-worship - Fundamentalists must expect to be accused of idolatry, such as Bible-worship. Make one accusation - & get one free.
There is so much wrong with the Bible anyway. Your reasoning against the Pope may rule him out; but it also rules out the Bible. Only inconsistency knocks out Pope, Bishops, Church, Doctrine & Sacraments, while sparing the Bible. The Bible is not a moral agent, so it cannot sin, unlike a person - but it is sinful in other ways: so by that analogy, objections to the ministers to God's ministers because of their sinfulness, are, if decisive, equally decisive against the Bible, which is a storehouse of sin. If the Bible is God, then it can't be ruled out. But only if it is God can it escape being a created means of grace. Are there Christians who think God is the Bible, & the Bible, God ? I don't know.
Because of the font size and color that hairy used I had a tough time reading that dialogue between you two.Where is the wrong in the Bible? You mean wrong interpretation maybe ??
The bible cannot be an instument of "wrong" maybe fallible people who interpret it can be off ....and thus lead others astray...That can be hapenning and true to our days and throught christian history. Many were lost as they did indeed "mixed" the message with other religions etc. And indeed the Church did hold the faith as the community of the faithful did come to terms with heresies such as Arius etc.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?