Popes are Redundant?

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Well GCC, that is a matter of interpretation.

Seems pretty clear to me that the entire pattern of Luke-Acts is a movement from the religion of the Jewish prophets, through John the Baptist, through our Lord, to the apostles as exemplified by Peter, to Paul and the Gentiles. In a full reading of the two books it's hard to miss it.

 

[Hentenza]

Seems pretty clear to me that the entire pattern of Luke-Acts is a movement from the religion of the Jewish prophets, through John the Baptist, through our Lord, to the apostles as exemplified by Peter, to Paul and the Gentiles. In a full reading of the two books it's hard to miss it.

I don't hold to the interpretation of Peter being above the other apostles. Don't get me wrong, I am in no way downplaying Peter's ministry, but there is no evidence that Peter had an exalted role compared to the other apostles.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I don't hold to the interpretation of Peter being above the other apostles. Don't get me wrong, I am in no way downplaying Peter's ministry, but there is no evidence that Peter had an exalted role compared to the other apostles.

Well, friend, don't get me wrong- being a Lutheran, I obvious have no love for the institution of the papacy as it is currently justified. But I guess it just seems to me that Peter's prominance in the gospels- his confession and the 'rock' passage, and our Lord's charge to him to feed his sheep- in combination with his highly prominent role among the early apostles just leads me to believe that he really, truly did have a special role in the early church. Just my analysis.

 

[ps139]

I don't hold to the interpretation of Peter being above the other apostles. Don't get me wrong, I am in no way downplaying Peter's ministry, but there is no evidence that Peter had an exalted role compared to the other apostles.

Really? Not trying to start an argument, but what about these verses (I'm just doing this from memory but you'll recognize these passages)

- Peter, feed my lambs, feed my sheep, feed my lambs. Saying something 3 times back then was like a legal contract. That Jesus said this was hugely important. It makes Peter the shepherd of Christ's sheep. Notice, Jesus doesn't say this to any other apostles.

- Notice that in just about every time that more than a few apostles are mentioned, it is "Peter and the apostles did this" or "Peter and the apostles did that." Gotta be a reason for that.

- Christ specifically prayed that Peter's faith would "fail not". Also, Peter is the only apostle commanded by Jesus to "strengthen your brethren."

When Mary Magdalene sees the angel at the open tomb, he says to her "go tell Peter and the apostles what you have seen' - why wouldn't he just say 'the apostles.' ? Again there must be some reason for that.

Peter is FIRST in:
- performing a miracle after Christ (with the shadow)
- raising someone from the dead after Christ
- taking the lead in replacing Judas
- to receive the Gentiles (after his dream)
- have a miracle worked for him while he is out preaching (released from prison by the angel)
- first to combat heresy (simon the magician)

Peter is the only one of the 12 to have a name changed by God. As students of the Bible we know this is of tremendous import. Actually, I think his name was changed as soon as he met Jesus!

Peter is given the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. Peter is given the ability to bind and loose sins. Peter is called the 'rock' on which the Church is built.

Peter is clearly the leader. There are probably tons more examples from Scripture but that's all I can remember.

 

[Hentenza]

Well, friend, don't get me wrong- being a Lutheran, I obvious have no love for the institution of the papacy as it is currently justified. But I guess it just seems to me that Peter's prominance in the gospels- his confession and the 'rock' passage, and our Lord's charge to him to feed his sheep- in combination with his highly prominent role among the early apostles just leads me to believe that he really, truly did have a special role in the early church. Just my analysis.

So tell me GCC, which is the disciple that Jesus loved?

John 13:23
23One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him.

 

[ps139]

So tell me GCC, which is the disciple that Jesus loved?

John 13:23
23One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him.

John certainly had a special role among the apostles, though it was not as leader.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

So tell me GCC, which is the disciple that Jesus loved?

John 13:23
23One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him.

I don't pretend to know the answer. The twentieth century is filled with hundreds of articles published in scholarly journals trying to determine his identity, with answers ranging from the traditional answer of the Apostle John to a symbolic figure representing the apostolic ideal. I'm quite satisfied with 'I have no idea.'

 

[Hentenza]

Really? Not trying to start an argument, but what about these verses (I'm just doing this from memory but you'll recognize these passages)

- Peter, feed my lambs, feed my sheep, feed my lambs. Saying something 3 times back then was like a legal contract. That Jesus said this was hugely important. It makes Peter the shepherd of Christ's sheep. Notice, Jesus doesn't say this to any other apostles.

- Notice that in just about every time that more than a few apostles are mentioned, it is "Peter and the apostles did this" or "Peter and the apostles did that." Gotta be a reason for that.

- Christ specifically prayed that Peter's faith would "fail not". Also, Peter is the only apostle commanded by Jesus to "strengthen your brethren."

When Mary Magdalene sees the angel at the open tomb, he says to her "go tell Peter and the apostles what you have seen' - why wouldn't he just say 'the apostles.' ? Again there must be some reason for that.

Peter is FIRST in:
- performing a miracle after Christ (with the shadow)
- raising someone from the dead after Christ
- taking the lead in replacing Judas
- to receive the Gentiles (after his dream)
- have a miracle worked for him while he is out preaching (released from prison by the angel)
- first to combat heresy (simon the magician)

Peter is the only one of the 12 to have a name changed by God. As students of the Bible we know this is of tremendous import. Actually, I think his name was changed as soon as he met Jesus!

Peter is given the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. Peter is given the ability to bind and loose sins. Peter is called the 'rock' on which the Church is built.

Peter is clearly the leader. There are probably tons more examples from Scripture but that's all I can remember.

Sorry friend, but that is the RC interpretation.

In Acts 15:1-23 James takes over after Peter talks and gives his judgment not Peter's.

In Galatians 2:11-14 Paul corrects Peter.

In 1 Peter 5 Peter calls himself a fellow elder.

In Matthew 16:23 Jesus calls Peter Satan.

Peter is clearly NOT the leader nor did he ever intended to be. There is nothing in 1 and 2 Peter that even hints at Peter's primacy.

 

[ps139]

Sorry friend, but that is the RC interpretation.

And yours is correct because....?

I

n Acts 15:1-23 James takes over after Peter talks and gives his judgment not Peter's.

In Galatians 2:11-14 Paul corrects Peter.

These two examples, compared to the 20 something I listed, proves that leaders are not perfect.

In 1 Peter 5 Peter calls himself a fellow elder.

And if the president called himself an American citizen.... would he not be a leader?

In Matthew 16:23 Jesus calls Peter Satan.

Again, leaders are not perfect. Obviously, Jesus did not mean Peter = satan, He meant that Peter's speech was advocating something against the will of the Father... something which has its ultimate source in satan. Later on Peter denied Christ... but the important part - he was restored by Christ.

Peter is clearly NOT the leader nor did he ever intended to be.

I would like you to address what I wrote in the other post, with something more than "Sorry that is the RC interpretation."

There is nothing in 1 and 2 Peter that even hints at Peter's primacy.

That is called an argument from ignorance in technical terms... you can't disprove something by claiming it hasn't been proven true.... in 2 epistles, no less.

So, let me know what you think of what I wrote in my other post. I honestly can't see how someone could think that does not mean Peter is a leader.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Lets not forget that before the end of the first century, Clement in his epistle states that he does not command the churches as Peter and Paul did.

Three implications.

First, Peter did command the church.

Second, Paul also commanded the church, leading me to believe in episcopal equality such that the Eastern Orthodox profess.

Third, Clement, a bishop of Rome, did not command the church, and I have therefore no reason to believe that Peter's primacy was passed on to his successors.

 

[Hentenza]

I don't pretend to know the answer. The twentieth century is filled with hundreds of articles published in scholarly journals trying to determine his identity, with answers ranging from the traditional answer of the Apostle John to a symbolic figure representing the apostolic ideal. I'm quite satisfied with 'I have no idea.'

Early church tradition believes that John was the disciple that Jesus loved. There are also several clues in scripture that point to John, examples are Jesus leaving custody of his mother to John, only the gospel of John mentions this disciple, and others. Peter was not this disciple because Pater asked Jesus about this disciple in John 21:20-21.
So if Peter can't be this disciple, why would Jesus made Peter the leader of the disciples? Why not this disciple that Jesus loved? Jesus called Peter Satan, Peter refused knowing Jesus 3 times, so why would Jesus put Peter in charge?

 

[sunlover1]

Peter is the only one of the 12 to have a name changed by God. As students of the Bible we know this is of tremendous import. Actually, I think his name was changed as soon as he met Jesus!

Hi, here are a couple that come to mind.
James John, sons of thunder.
Saul Paul (Now THAT was quite a dramatic meeting)

 

[Hentenza]

And yours is correct because....?

The first thing that I am going to ask you is to refrain from referring to my post as "my" interpretation. You belong to a church and believe in their teachings and I belong to a church and believe in their teachings. So keep the debate to substance instead of what "I" believe.

IThese two examples, compared to the 20 something I listed, proves that leaders are not perfect.

The examples that you provided are paraphrases of what the RC teaches.

And if the president called himself an American citizen.... would he not be a leader?

Strawman.

Again, leaders are not perfect. Obviously, Jesus did not mean Peter = satan, He meant that Peter's speech was advocating something against the will of the Father... something which has its ultimate source in satan. Later on Peter denied Christ... but the important part - he was restored by Christ.

You are absolutely correct, leaders are not perfect and I have no problem with what you said here.

I would like you to address what I wrote in the other post, with something more than "Sorry that is the RC interpretation."

I did, however, it is contrary to what the RC teaches.

That is called an argument from ignorance in technical terms... you can't disprove something by claiming it hasn't been proven true.... in 2 epistles, no less.

LOL! That makes absolutely no sense. The two epistles of Peter is merely one piece of evidence among many.

So, let me know what you think of what I wrote in my other post. I honestly can't see how someone could think that does not mean Peter is a leader.

I did and I disagree with the RC's interpretation.

 

[Rhamiel]

Lets not forget that before the end of the first century, Clement in his epistle states that he does not command the churches as Peter and Paul did.

Three implications.

.................................................

Second, Paul also commanded the church, leading me to believe in episcopal equality such that the Eastern Orthodox profess.
...................................

protestants and orthodox seem to assume that the catholic church is a one man show, well lets burst that bubble right now, there are lots of important bishops priests and lay members all across the globe, all of them with differant ministries, it is the collage of bishops with 23 Churches combined to form the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
yea thats how we roll

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

protestants and orthodox seem to assume that the catholic church is a one man show, well lets burst that bubble right now, there are lots of important bishops priests and lay members all across the globe, all of them with differant ministries, it is the collage of bishops with 23 Churches combined to form the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
yea thats how we roll

You know, you're right.

But I must say, if you were talking to anybody but me, there'd probably be a big furor from grouping Protestants and Orthodox together.

As it stands, I'm right in between Lutheranism and Orthodox. So all is well.

 

[Thekla]

Sorry friend, but that is the RC interpretation.

In Acts 15:1-23 James takes over after Peter talks and gives his judgment not Peter's.

In Galatians 2:11-14 Paul corrects Peter.

In 1 Peter 5 Peter calls himself a fellow elder.

In Matthew 16:23 Jesus calls Peter Satan.

Peter is clearly NOT the leader nor did he ever intended to be. There is nothing in 1 and 2 Peter that even hints at Peter's primacy.

in my Bible, a footnote mentions that in the passage where Paul "corrects" Peter, one of the words is a term implying that this was "planned between them". Anotherwords, this happened in this way so that those that Peter served could be "brought along" as slowly as they needed ...

as for John being the "beloved" disciple, Tradition teaches this, too. (In icons of the "Last Supper", he is shown with his head near the chest of Christ). Tradition also teaches that he was the youngest of the disciples (still in his teens).

 

[Hentenza]

protestants and orthodox seem to assume that the catholic church is a one man show, well lets burst that bubble right now, there are lots of important bishops priests and lay members all across the globe, all of them with differant ministries, it is the collage of bishops with 23 Churches combined to form the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
yea thats how we roll

And, to who do those bishops answer to?

 

[Rhamiel]

And, to who do those bishops answer to?

the Lord Jesus Christ, just like all of mankind and the angels

 

[Hentenza]

in my Bible, a footnote mentions that in the passage where Paul "corrects" Peter, one of the words is a term implying that this was "planned between them". Anotherwords, this happened in this way so that those that Peter served could be "brought along" as slowly as they needed ...

I had read that also but have no way to verify it.

as for John being the "beloved" disciple, Tradition teaches this, too. (In icons of the "Last Supper", he is shown with his head near the chest of Christ). Tradition also teaches that he was the youngest of the disciples (still in his teens).

I agree. The scriptural clues, although not conclusive, certainly point to John as the disciple that Jesus loved. Also, it does make sense that John was the youngest considering that he died around 100AD.

 

[Hentenza]

the Lord Jesus Christ, just like all of mankind and the angels

Well good for them for bypassing the pope.