Peter Is Not The Rock!

MamaZ said:

I see what Paul said and one must understand the covenant. It was the covenant that God made with Abraham and the two wives and the Bond and the free. We have to read the whole intire context of scripture and allow scripture to interpret scripture. Paul was an Apostle appointed by Christ Himself to preach to the gentiles. These Aposltes were the ones that were sent and the very foundations of the church and its doctrine and teaching. Now that it has been recorded for all to see we have the True foundation. Christ, then the teaching of the Apostles. It has all been layed. We are the ones that have to be careful on how we build on these. For it is not men who teach us but the Holy Spirit. This was the very reason the Apostles were sent. We only have the 12 plus Paul. These are the only Apostles that have been called to set the teaching to which we are to be a pillar witness to.

Click to expand...

Actually, Paul was pretty clear that he was training Timothy to also teach and that Timothy was to train others. Not that once the 12 were gone, the Holy Spirit would take on that role directly, instead of working through those chosen to be leaders.

"And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others."

Why was this necessary? Why would those others even need a teacher other than the Holy Spirit based upon your interpretation?

narnia59 said:

Many ways to do that without renaming one of your apostles.


so now you are the Judge of what Christ should have done with His personal relationsip with Peter. When Christ was speaking personally to someone we can take the teaching out of what He was saying to Peter. We do not have to build on this teaching and make it out that Peter was any more special than any of the other Apostles.

I believe that each act of Christ the writers of the Gospels chose to reveal to us, every word is important to what we are know and how we are to understand the Gospels. So searching for a reason why we should know and understand that Jesus actually changed Peter's name to rock is important in my view.

Click to expand...

Peters name was changed to little stone. Moveable stone.

narnia59 said:

Actually, Paul was pretty clear that he was training Timothy to also teach and that Timothy was to train others. Not that once the 12 were gone, the Holy Spirit would take on that role directly, instead of working through those chosen to be leaders.

"And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others."

Why was this necessary? Why would those others even need a teacher other than the Holy Spirit based upon your interpretation?

Click to expand...

Timothy as well as Titus were Pastor , teachers, We still have those today. They were not appointed Apostles by Paul. We have assemblys all over the nations and each one should have an overseer in them. To preach the word in season and out of season.

Originally Posted by narnia59

Perhaps, but still not taking the dive into Revelation. Nice try though.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the RCC should take a second gander at that book.
For example, is this the literal river of the "eufrates" drying up" The only reason EUPHRATES is used in the english is that is how it appears in the Greek.

Luke 23:31 That if in the moist/ugrw <5200> wood these-things they are doing, in the Dry/xhrw <3584>, what may be becoming/genhtai <1096> (5638)?

Reve 16:12 And the sixth [*messenger] pours out the bowl of him on the river, the Great [the] Euphrates/eu-frathn <2166>. And is dried/exhranqh <3583> (5681) the water of him that may be being made ready the way of the kings, of the ones from eastward/rising of sun.

The scriptures are our spiritual food. That is why paul states about the sincere milk of the word.

MamaZ said:

The scriptures are our spiritual food. That is why paul states about the sincere milk of the word.

Click to expand...

Paul also knew the Scriptures

1 Thessalonians 3:13 Into the stand-fast of ye, the hearts blameless in together-holiness before the God and Father of us in the Parousia <3952> of the Lord of us, Jesus Christ, with all of the holy-ones of Him [Zech 14:5/Revelation 19:11.]

Zechariah 14:5 And ye flee ravine of mountains of Me that He shall touch ravine of mountains to 'Atsel and ye flee as which ye fled from faces of the quake in days of `Uzziyah king of Y@huwdah and He comes, YHWH, Elohiym of me all of holy one with Thee.

Anglian said:

Dear Narnia,

It will be interesting to see if you can find your thoughts about the earlier post.

I do think that it is clear there has always been more than one reading of the verses we are discussing, in this sense. Primacy has always been admitted (at least until the sixteenth century), but its meaning has varied, with the West coming to understand it as appertaining to authority in the form of jurisdiction, and the East as authority in the form of prestige and moral persuasion. Both John Paul the Great and Benedict XVI have written on this theme and stressed that the Pope is an elder among elders - which is just what St. Peter said in his first epistle.

It is finding our way to a shared understanding of primacy which is at issue between Orthodox and Catholics; and of that, I do not despair.

peace,

Anglian

Click to expand...

You had mentioned Benedict XVI and the reference I was looking for was relating to the similar message by John Paul II. It was a quote from an Orthodox (bishop I think) who said that JP2 had basically asked the Orthodox -- what is the role in which you would accept the primacy of Peter, and he said that thusfar, Orthodoxy had not been able to respond to the question. I was trying to find exactly who and the exact quote.

I do not find it improbable that Christ planted that seed and it can take varying forms depending upon the need of the time -- at times stronger, other times more equal, but always the force which provides the unity which truly makes us 'one church'. Both the East and the West were historically plagued with being too closely involved with the state, the lines between the church and monarcy were often blurred, we had emperors and kings who believed their position was God-given. I think historically we allowed politics to divide us more than theology. Benedict has a wonderful correlation of that bondage to one of the temptations of Christ -- when Satan offers him kingship of the world if he but bow to him, and the manifestation of that temptation which the church historically has had to battle. It's my view the Russian Orthodox church is seeing the manifestation of that temptation now with the willingness to allow Putin to recognize a state religion and actively fight against others.

The point you made though about Islam and the secular world.... the Christian church is in quite a precarious position. One of the contributors I believe is the stance most of Christianity has taken in favor of artificial contraception. Frankly, the Muslims are going to outproduce us. Our inability to cease our constant bickering amongst ourselves, the growing forces of secularism and Islam ... I believe we are in for some very rough times. And I believe it will be God's divine chastisement because we are failing to behave like the sons we are, there is little true humility in any corner (I struggle with this myself), and He will refuse to allow this, and will do what it takes to unite us, and it will not be pleasant. But He will have a "harvest of righteousness and peace".

"And you have forgotten that word of encouragement that addresses you as sons: "My son, do not make light of the Lord's discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son." Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons. Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live! Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it."

MamaZ said:

Peters name was changed to little stone. Moveable stone.

Click to expand...

Or the masculine form of petra (rock). Would be easier to accept if the NT used petros elsewhere when it means little stone. Noteably it does not.

MamaZ said:

Timothy as well as Titus were Pastor , teachers, We still have those today. They were not appointed Apostles by Paul. We have assemblys all over the nations and each one should have an overseer in them. To preach the word in season and out of season.

Click to expand...

Do you have leaders that you submit to their authority, as scripture indicates we should?

Timothy was ordained and then became a bishop.

Paul gives us the order of the church as designed by God -- "And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues."

Can you point out anywhere where this changed?

narnia59 said:

Or the masculine form of petra (rock). Would be easier to accept if the NT used petros elsewhere when it means little stone. Noteably it does not.

Click to expand...

So are you using the arugument of Matt 16:18 simply for the Pope being Chief Honcho over all Christianity? Just wondering.

Exodus 14:16 And thou raise high thy staff/rod and stretch forth thy hand over the Sea and split/1234 baqa thou him and and sons of Israel shall enter in midst of the Sea in Dry.....21 And Moses is stretching forth his hand over the Sea and YHWH caused the Sea in strong wind of east all of the night and he is placing the Sea to drained-area and they are being split/1234 baqa the waters [Zech 14:13/Reve 16:12]

Revelation 11:8 and the dead-bodies/corpses of them upon the broadplace of the City, the Great, which is being called spiritually Sodom/n and Egypt/f where even/also the Lord of them was crucified.

Reve 16:12 And the sixth [*messenger] pours out the bowl of him on the River, the great [the] euphrates/eu-frathn <2166>. And is dried/exhranqh <3583> (5681) the Water of him that may be being made ready the way of the kings, of the ones from eastward/rising of sun.

MamaZ said:

Timothy as well as Titus were Pastor , teachers, We still have those today. They were not appointed Apostles by Paul. We have assemblys all over the nations and each one should have an overseer in them. To preach the word in season and out of season.

Click to expand...

Precisely! Nowhere in the NT was there EVER a single reference to the succession of an Apostle. The only occasion that might be wrongly misconstrued and which some RCs have actually used to indicate apostolic succession was the appointment of Matthias to REPLACE Judas in Acts 1. But this was a replacement exercise and the criteria laid down in Acts 1:21 and 22 for the suitability of the candidate clearly shows that it is not to be replicated after the age of the Apostles. How the RCs who refer to this exercise as an example of apostolic succession and yet not have read Acts 1:21-22 is something that baffles me. It is this wishy-washy treatment of Scriptures that I find shocking - it can lead to a lot of heresy and erroneous understanding of Scriptures.

Because of the absence in the NT of any instance of apostolic succession, I'm not surprised that the earlier poster mistook the appointment of teachers/pastors as an appointment of Apostles!

Thanks for your clear thoughts on this matter and for pointing out so speedily that they were teachers. Good job.

narnia59 said:

Do you have leaders that you submit to their authority, as scripture indicates we should?

Timothy was ordained and then became a bishop.

Paul gives us the order of the church as designed by God -- "And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues."

Can you point out anywhere where this changed?

Click to expand...

Paul was writing to which church? Were there apostles at the time when Paul was writing?

Please read the Bible in context.

LittleLambofJesus said:

Perhaps the RCC should take a second gander at that book.
For example, is this the literal river of the "eufrates" drying up" The only reason EUPHRATES is used in the english is that is how it appears in the Greek.

Luke 23:31 That if in the moist/ugrw <5200> wood these-things they are doing, in the Dry/xhrw <3584>, what may be becoming/genhtai <1096> (5638)?

Reve 16:12 And the sixth [*messenger] pours out the bowl of him on the river, the Great [the] Euphrates/eu-frathn <2166>. And is dried/exhranqh <3583> (5681) the water of him that may be being made ready the way of the kings, of the ones from eastward/rising of sun.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should stop trying to divert the thread.

But since you have, can I assume from your signature and the color coding you are making a statement?
Originally Posted by

Protestants must ignore or distort much of the bible because it supports Catholicism

John 8:44 "Ye out of a father the Devil are, and the desires of the father of ye, ye are willing to be doing...."

Matthew 13:33 "Serpents! generation of vipers! how may Ye escape from the judgment of the Gehenna"?

Ezekiel 39:12 And house of Israel entomb Them so that to Cleanse/Purify the Land Seven Months.

Reve 14:11 And the smoke of the tormenting of Them into Ages of Ages is ascending,

Seems to me you are indicating that catholics (denoted by the red) are 'out of a father the devil", and "serpents" and a 'generation of vipers that may not escape the judgement of Gehenna", and will be entombed by the house of Israel, and the smoke of our tormenting into ages of ages is ascending.

And the protestants (denoted by the blue) are cleansing/purifying.

Am I interpreting this correctly?

beamishboy said:

Paul was writing to which church? Were there apostles at the time when Paul was writing?

Please read the Bible in context.

Click to expand...

Always do.

Are you proposing that God would have appointed things differently depending on the specific local church? And where scripture teaches this is?

How the RCs who refer to this exercise as an example of apostolic succession and yet not have read Acts 1:21-22 is something that baffles me. It is this wishy-washy treatment of Scriptures that I find shocking - it can lead to a lot of heresy and erroneous understanding of Scriptures.

Click to expand...

What about Acts 1:6 concerning restoring the Kingdom to Israel [not to the RCC or Peter]

Acts 1:6 The-ones indeed then coming together asked Him saying: "Lord!, if in to-the time, this, restoring/apokaqistaneiV <600> (5719) the Kingdom to-the Israel?"

Reve 17:12 And the ten horns which thou saw ten kings are who-any a Kingdom not as yet receive, but authority as kings one hour they are receiving with the beast,

beamishboy said:

Precisely! Nowhere in the NT was there EVER a single reference to the succession of an Apostle. The only occasion that might be wrongly misconstrued and which some RCs have actually used to indicate apostolic succession was the appointment of Matthias to REPLACE Judas in Acts 1. But this was a replacement exercise and the criteria laid down in Acts 1:21 and 22 for the suitability of the candidate clearly shows that it is not to be replicated after the age of the Apostles. How the RCs who refer to this exercise as an example of apostolic succession and yet not have read Acts 1:21-22 is something that baffles me. It is this wishy-washy treatment of Scriptures that I find shocking - it can lead to a lot of heresy and erroneous understanding of Scriptures.

Because of the absence in the NT of any instance of apostolic succession, I'm not surprised that the earlier poster mistook the appointment of teachers/pastors as an appointment of Apostles!

Thanks for your clear thoughts on this matter and for pointing out so speedily that they were teachers. Good job.

Click to expand...

Beamishboy, perhaps when referring to the position of the Catholic church as though it were isolated, you might be so kind as to include the Orthodox when disparaging beliefs that we share? Of which apostolic succession would be one, I believe. I'd hate for them to feel left out.

And you might point out that constitutes the two largest branches of Christianity while you're at it.

narnia59 said:

Always do.

Are you proposing that God would have appointed things differently depending on the specific local church? And where scripture teaches this is?

Click to expand...

There are some things in the church that cannot be replicated today. Naturally. For example, nobody can write an epistle and get it published in the Bible. Nobody can now be an evangelist even if he thinks God wants him to.

It is you who should show me Scriptures for the support that there was apostolic succession practised in the NT or allowed in the NT. You will never be able to do that because it simply is not something the apostles even remotely envisaged that future Christians would cook up.

beamishboy said:

Besides, Paul wrote, "In the church, God has appointed..."

Paul was obviously referring to the church in his time. Trust me. I'm English and real English is my native language. Unless you wish to point out that in the original Greek, Paul wrote "In the future church , God will appoint..." which you can't because that's not what the Koine Greek says either.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting we interpret everything the Bible records that God does to be limited to a specific point in time unless otherwise noted? That would be an interesting study.....

Or one could understand that God established the order of the church, and Scripture no where indicates that would change when the original apostles died, so why should we believe it did?

narnia59 said:

And you might point out that constitutes the two largest branches of Christianity while you're at it.

Click to expand...

Why are you so obsessed with size? Broad is the road to ___?