Peter Is Not The Rock!

[LittleLambofJesus]

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.

Yeah. I notice the Muslims are as large as Roman Catholicism is. Does that make them right?

Matt 7:13 Enter ye thru the cramped Gate, that broad the Gate and spacious the Way the one leading into the Destruction, and many are the ones entering thru Her. 14 that cramped the Gate and having been constricted the Way, the one leading into the Life and few are the ones finding Her.

Revelation 22:14 Happy the ones rinsing the robes of them, that it shall be the authority of them on the Wood of the Life and to the Gates they may be entering into the City.

 

[narnia59]

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.

Or perhaps since they did not tell us that the model of the church was going to change once they died, they assumed we wouldn't 'cook up' the idea that it would?

At any rate, can you please tell me when and where you think historically this idea was 'cooked up'?

 

[beamishboy]

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?

To assume that would be to do violence to the word of God. Paul wrote that God has appointed apostles, etc obviously indicating that he was talking about the church in his time. Just as Paul talked about his own appointment as apostle. To read everything as replicable even in our time would mean that the beamishboy can now claim to be an Apostle because of a similar experience that Paul has. Oh come on, is that how you read the Bible? That everything mentioned there which is clearly mentioned as having taken place can be replicated in the future, ie our time? Really, is that how you read the Bible?

 

[narnia59]

Yeah. I notice the Muslims are as large as Roman Catholicism is. Does that make them right?

Matt 7:13 Enter ye thru the cramped Gate, that broad the Gate and spacious the Way the one leading into the Destruction, and many are the ones entering thru Her. 14 that cramped the Gate and having been constricted the Way, the one leading into the Life and few are the ones finding Her.

Revelation 22:14 Happy the ones rinsing the robes of them, that it shall be the authority of them on the Wood of the Life and to the Gates they may be entering into the City.

I did not mean to imply that numbers make right, because no, I don't believe that to be true. But I do think that when one proposes that something another group is doing is wrong, and that 'something' has been the understanding and the model of the historical church for 1500 years an idea that it is not correct, the burden of proof is on those who wish to challenge the historical position, not the other way around.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

To assume that would be to do violence to the word of God. Paul wrote that God has appointed apostles, etc obviously indicating that he was talking about the church in his time. Just as Paul talked about his own appointment as apostle. To read everything as replicable even in our time would mean that the beamishboy can now claim to be an Apostle because of a similar experience that Paul has. Oh come on, is that how you read the Bible? That everything mentioned there which is clearly mentioned as having taken place can be replicated in the future, ie our time? Really, is that how you read the Bible?

So did Jesus

Matt 23:34 "Because of this behold! I am Commissioning/apostellw <649> toward ye Prophets and Wise-men and Scribes, out of them ye shall be killing/apokteneite <615> (5692) and ye shall be Crucifying and out of them ye shall be scourging in the Synagogues of ye and ye shall be persecuting/persuing from city into city"

Reve 11:7 `And whenever they should be finishing/teleswsin <5055> (5661) the testimony of them, the wild-beast, the oneascending out of the Abyss, shall be doing with them, battle, and shall be conquering them, and it shall be Killing/apoktenei <615> (5692) Them

 

[beamishboy]

Or perhaps since they did not tell us that the model of the church was going to change once they died, they assumed we wouldn't 'cook up' the idea that it would?

Wrong. Paul expected future Christians to be able to read normally bearing in mind the tenses and grammar like any kid in school is able to do. He did not expect future Christians to do violence to his epistles and misinterpret what he said wilfully.

At any rate, can you please tell me when and where you think historically this idea was 'cooked up'?

You are asking a 13-year-old when an error in another chap's church arose? I will be doing a study soon on all the errors of the RC church and the approximate dates when each error arose but it will probably be a very long study.

 

[narnia59]

To assume that would be to do violence to the word of God. Paul wrote that God has appointed apostles, etc obviously indicating that he was talking about the church in his time. Just as Paul talked about his own appointment as apostle. To read everything as replicable even in our time would mean that the beamishboy can now claim to be an Apostle because of a similar experience that Paul has. Oh come on, is that how you read the Bible? That everything mentioned there which is clearly mentioned as having taken place can be replicated in the future, ie our time? Really, is that how you read the Bible?

Why would you assume that nothing is applicable today unless it specifically says, and by the way, this applies to the future too? Is that the way you read the Bible? Really?

Where does the Bible say the model of the church changes from that which the apostles established to a different model once they die, and where it the new model defined? That's all I'm asking for.

You could claim to be an apostle, but those who understand apostolic succession wouldn't buy it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Why would you assume that nothing is applicable today unless it specifically says, and by the way, this applies to the future too? Is that the way you read the Bible? Really?

Where does the Bible say the model of the church changes from that which the apostles established to a different model once they die, and where it the new model defined? That's all I'm asking for.

You could claim to be an apostle, but those who understand apostolic succession wouldn't buy it.

Drat. I have to bring up "revelation" again

Reve 2:2 I have seen the works of thee, and the labour [*of thee], and the endurance of thee, and that not thou are able to bear evils, and thou test/try the ones saying themselves apostles [*are] and not they are, and thou found them false

 

[narnia59]

Wrong. Paul expected future Christians to be able to read normally bearing in mind the tenses and grammar like any kid in school is able to do. He did not expect future Christians to do violence to his epistles and misinterpret what he said wilfully.



You are asking a 13-year-old when an error in another chap's church arose? I will be doing a study soon on all the errors of the RC church and the approximate dates when each error arose but it will probably be a very long study.

Again, when determining another church is in error, could you please expand your accusations to all of those churches who hold the view? I'm really starting to worry the Orthodox are going to feel like they're being ignored and their beliefs aren't as important as ours.

But I will look forward to your study, for surely if what you say is true you should be able to pinpoint the exact time and condition in which this error was introduced.

Aside from that, I thought the Church of England also considered itself to be an apostolic church that could trace its bishops back in succession to the apostles? Or am I wrong about that?

 

[narnia59]

Drat. I have to bring up "revelation" again

Reve 2:2 I have seen the works of thee, and the labour [*of thee], and the endurance of thee, and that not thou are able to bear evils, and thou test/try the ones saying themselves apostles [*are] and not they are, and thou found them false

Is this not saying that in the church of Ephesus even during apostolic times there were those who were indeed false apostles?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Again, when determining another church is in error, could you please expand your accusations to all of those churches who hold the view? I'm really starting to worry the Orthodox are going to feel like they're being ignored and their beliefs aren't as important as ours.

The Roman Pope stands in the way of any type of reconciliation or haven't you heard.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6825875&page=7

What are major differences between Orthodox and Catholicism

http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html

The Church Fathers' Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18​

An Historical Refutation of the Claims of Roman Catholicism

 

[MamaZ]

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.

Nope.. for Petros and Petra are two different meanings.. The scriptures were not written in Spanish. They were written in greek.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Nope.. for Petros and Petra are two different meanings.. The scriptures were not written in Spanish. They were written in greek.

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

Spanish RV) Matthew 16:18 Mas yo también te digo, que tú eres Pedro, y sobre esta piedra edificaré mi iglesia; y las puertas del infierno no prevalecerán contra ella.

 

[beamishboy]

Why would you assume that nothing is applicable today unless it specifically says, and by the way, this applies to the future too? Is that the way you read the Bible? Really?

Where does the Bible say the model of the church changes from that which the apostles established to a different model once they die, and where it the new model defined? That's all I'm asking for.

You could claim to be an apostle, but those who understand apostolic succession wouldn't buy it.

The way to read the Bible or indeed any book for that matter, is to consider its grammar and its sense. If the Bible says God appointed Apostles, it's blatantly wrong to assume that He appoints Apostles to this day. This is an error of interpretation even the weaker boys in my school would not make.

You are wilfully changing the meaning of my argument. I did not say that the model of the church has to be changed from that which the apostles set up. You are the one introducing changes - for example, apostolic succession which is totally FOREIGN to the Apostles and the NT. I'm saying God has appointed apostles. The Apostles have taught us. The Apostles have left us their writing. Nowhere is there a teaching that new apostles must be appointed where the old ones left. I'm saying we continue with the church the way the Apostles left off and introduce nothing new and of our own making. Let's not create new Apostles of our own, new Jesuses of our own, etc. It's you who introduce new unapostolic practices and since you can't justify them as biblical, you have to admit they are innovations you've cooked up.

 

[MamaZ]

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?

Show me where Timothy was ordained in the sense you speak of.. One must understand the scriptures.. LOL.. Apostles are not and never have been stationary teachers.. We have only the 12 plus Paul as (A)postles. Then we have some (a)postles which the meaning of is sent ones also but they were not the Apostles.. And each and ever assembly of Christs body probably has all you have pointed out. What does this have to do with Peter being the rock?

 

[narnia59]

The Roman Pope stands in the way of any type of reconciliation or haven't you heard.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6825875&page=7

What are major differences between Orthodox and Catholicism

http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html

The Church Fathers' Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18​

An Historical Refutation of the Claims of Roman Catholicism

The topic specifically brought up by beamishboy that I was addressing was apostolic succession, not unification of the churches or the role of Peter as rock. Unless I am mistaken, apostolic succession is a belief that is common to both Catholics and all branches of Orthodoxy (and I thought Anglicanism).

So why the almost obsessive interest in bringing up points of Catholicism, while ignoring that particular points are not unique to Catholicism but indeed shared by other branches of Christianity? It would seem that if the Catholics are so wrong about this, so are the Orthodox, yet there only seems the need to address it as an 'error' of Catholicism. This I do not understand.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Btw. Has anyone read thru this site that was given to me by an Orthodox sometime back?

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6050583&page=14
What would it take for catholics to convert to Orthodox Church?

http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html

Conclusion

..................This reveals two important points from both a theological and historical perspective. Theologically, there is no evidence of patristic consensus to support the Vatican I papal interpretation of Matthew 16:18&#8211;19 equating the rock with the person of Peter, assigning to him and the Roman bishops the place of preeminence of rule in the Church through the authority of the keys. The Roman Catholic Church&#8217;s appeal to the &#8216;universal consent of the fathers&#8217; to support its exegesis of Matthew 16 is fallacious. Such a consensus does not exist. The interpretation of Matthew 16:18 by the major fathers of the patristic age from both the East and West demonstrates that the overwhelming majority view of the Church historically is not that of the Roman Catholic Church today.

The fact is, apart from the popes themselves&#8212;beginning in the late fourth century&#8212;and with those who have an interest in promoting the papacy, the Roman interpretation of Matthew 16:18&#8211;19 has historically been universally rejected by the Church in both East and West. And what is true in the exegetical history is true also in historical practice. It is clear from the history of the Church, in the attitudes and actions of the general Councils and with individual fathers in their dealings with the bishops of Rome, that in the patristic age, the Church never operated on the basis of a universal Roman primacy or in the belief in papal infallibility.

 

[narnia59]

Nope.. for Petros and Petra are two different meanings.. The scriptures were not written in Spanish. They were written in greek.

Do you deny that Petros is the masculine form of the feminine name Petra in Greek?

Are these not common Greek names?

Are there any men named Petra? Any women named Petros?

If a father named Petros has a daughter, might she be named Petra after him?

Of would Petros be the name given a name in order to honor his mother, Petra?

Just curious.

 

[MamaZ]

This succession you speak of is not found in the written scriptures. For it is God who calls and gifts the men as He wills. It is not passed down by voting a man in as being a pope. It is not passed down from man to man.. We only have 12 plus Paul as Apostles.. This is not a hand me down office..

 

[hogndog]

So you are going to do a study on "All The Errors" Of the RC church?
What happens when you come to the end of your study in say some
60 years from now. Your all excited you've done what no mortal man
has been able to do since the fall of the Roman Empire through the Inquisitions, you post your findings to the next generation and they

you?


You are asking a 13-year-old when an error in another chap's church arose? I will be doing a study soon on all the errors of the RC church and the approximate dates when each error arose but it will probably be a very long study.