The missing piece of the YOU ARE PETER puzzle

Status
Not open for further replies.

jimmyjimmy

Pardoned Rebel
Supporter
Jan 2, 2015
11,556
5,728
USA
✟234,973.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed." - Gal 1:8

What is evident here is that neither the office held nor some spectacular experience trumps the gospel message, which is contained in the scriptures. Paul could have stated his authority, and that of the other apostles, as ultimate, but he clearly teaches otherwise here. He says that even though I hold the highest office in the church, do not listen to me if I teach something other than scripture teaches.
 
Upvote 0

Metal Minister

New Year, Still Old School!
May 8, 2012
12,140
591
✟29,999.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
thatbrian, Jesus did give all of His authority to only His Apostolic Church, these two verses by Jesus thumps any verse from Paul. 1st Timothy 3: 14 and Luke 10:16

Paul wrote 1st Timothy and Luke was Paul's physician. What are you trying to say here Barry? :confused: :scratch: :confused:
 
Upvote 0
B

barryatlake

Guest
All authority was given to His Apostles. Being that Jesus Teachings were not only for the first century Christians but also for all future generations, so, Jesus also gave His apostles to ordain replacements/ successors. Luke 10; 16 testifying to "Authority" of His Apostolic Church. 1 Tim. 3, is stating no need for future man-made churches with their false doctrines.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Jesus did give all of His authority to only His Apostolic Church, these two verses by Jesus thumps any verse from Paul.

You weren't serious, then, when you said before that you DO consider the Bible to be inspired, the word of God, and part of Sacred Tradition? Is that correct?
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You weren't serious, then, when you said before that you DO consider the Bible to be inspired, the word of God, and part of Sacred Tradition? Is that correct?

That's always been a myth amongst us on the outside of RC (and mostly of those in RC too); that is, the myth of three-legged stool in RC.

The truth is it is two-legged (Tradition and Scripture) with the Magisterium sitting upon it deciding for their faithful what is and what isn't true for them.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
That's always been a myth amongst us on the outside of RC (and mostly of those in RC too); that is, the myth of three-legged stool in RC.

I don't think the RC does subscribe to any three-legged stool idea. :confused:

It's all absorbed into "Tradition" which, as you know, means whatever the church wants it to mean.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The Holy Bible is indeed the " inerrant" Word of God. .

...unless it's the part that we call Paul's epistles. I believe that was what you were saying.

barryatlake said:
Jesus did give all of His authority to only His Apostolic Church, these two verses by Jesus thumps any verse from Paul.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Albion, Jesus certainly did pass on all of His Authority to His Apostles, the apostles being the nucleus of His One Holy Apostolic Church.

How about taking an uncompromised stand on what you wrote a few posts back. Are Paul's epistles the inerrant word of God...or not? You to a lot of talking about the theory that your denomination wrote the Bible, and yet now you are saying that some of it is "trumped" (is that what you meant to say?) by other parts of it.
 
Upvote 0
B

barryatlake

Guest
Albion, even your bible will tell you that, the church is the final authority on matters of the Christian Faith. Even Jesus identifies the Church as "me" in Acts 9: 4. But, anyways ,you'll have your final say, even if Jesus is telling you from His Word, the bible ,which is written to verify that Christ's Church is to be the pillar and foundation of truth. That we must obey the church and that Christ only states that he only protects his Church and Christ loves His Church, even the bible itself tells us all of this.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Albion, even your bible will tell you that, the church is the final authority on matters of the Christian Faith. Even Jesus identifies the Church as "me" in Acts 9: 4. But, anyways ,you'll have your final say, even if Jesus is telling you from His Word, the bible ,which is written to verify that Christ's Church is to be the pillar and foundation of truth. That we must obey the church and that Christ only states that he only protects his Church and Christ loves His Church, even the bible itself tells us all of this.

So do you consider Paul's Epistles to be as inerrant as the rest of the Bible or not?

Before you wrote that Jesus' words "thump" Paul's letters ("these two verses by Jesus thumps any verse from Paul") , you had written this:

The Holy Bible is indeed the " inerrant" Word of God.

Because you often write on this particular matter, I just wanted to have your position clarified.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
B

barryatlake

Guest
Albion, the words of the Bible often need to be interpreted in light of what the original authors meant to say. Only a living tradition can give us such meanings--- there are no footnotes in the original Bible.
Of course Paul's letters are inerrant. Why I said that Jesus words thump those of Pauls words is because in the KJV Bible those letters written in red, from what I gather, are supposedly the actual Words of Jesus. Also, many Protestants do not read the Holy Bible as it should be understood.
 
Upvote 0

Metal Minister

New Year, Still Old School!
May 8, 2012
12,140
591
✟29,999.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Albion, the words of the Bible often need to be interpreted in light of what the original authors meant to say. Only a living tradition can give us such meanings--- there are no footnotes in the original Bible.
No, but an understanding of Koine Greek and ancient Hebrew makes your statement invalid. If I can read the originals (as close as we can get to them) then I do not need a Tradition to tell me what they say. There is no evidence that the RCC knows any better "what the authors 'meant' to say" than what we can gather from them now. In fact there is evidence against that idea.

Of course Paul's letters are inerrant. Why I said that Jesus words thump those of Pauls words is because in the KJV Bible those letters written in red, from what I gather, are supposedly the actual Words of Jesus.
So are you saying that because one translation of the bible places Jesus' words in red, it gives them more weight and can contradict other passages? :confused:

Also, many Protestants do not read the Holy Bible as it should be understood.

Wonderful circular assertion here. So because people disagree with the RCC way of doing things, we're not reading the bible correctly? That's begging the question. Care to prove your assertion here?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Albion, the words of the Bible often need to be interpreted in light of what the original authors meant to say. Only a living tradition can give us such meanings--- there are no footnotes in the original Bible.
Of course Paul's letters are inerrant.

OK.

Why I said that Jesus words thump those of Pauls words is because in the KJV Bible those letters written in red, from what I gather, are supposedly the actual Words of Jesus.

So.....? That's just to call the reader's attention to them, nothing more, and surely nothing about them trumping or thumping (?) Paul's words. :doh:
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I don't think the RC does subscribe to any three-legged stool idea. :confused:

It's all absorbed into "Tradition" which, as you know, means whatever the church wants it to mean.

The Holy Bible is indeed the " inerrant" Word of God. Apostolic Traditional Teachings from Jesus to His apostles and their successors are "infallible" Christ's True Church combines both the Holy Bible and the Apostolic Traditional Teachings .

There it is.

2 legged stool (Tradition and Scripture)

Magisterium (informer of the 2 legged stool)

EO has the same 2 legged stool, but E Councils are their "magisterium".

For P, we have Scripture as the one legged stool as regards doctrine and practice. And we have (or try to have) the whole point; that is, to hear God without a earthly priest (or magisterium as Pope/priest or Council) between us.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I don't think the RC does subscribe to any three-legged stool idea. :confused:

It's all absorbed into "Tradition" which, as you know, means whatever the church wants it to mean.

Again, you have a misconception of the Catholic Church. The three legged stool is
Sacred Scripture
Sacred Tradition
Sacred Magisterium.

Also, it's not, as you THINK, 'whatever the church wants it to mean'. It is what it is, not what you think it is.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
No, but an understanding of Koine Greek and ancient Hebrew makes your statement invalid. If I can read the originals (as close as we can get to them) then I do not need a Tradition to tell me what they say. There is no evidence that the RCC knows any better "what the authors 'meant' to say" than what we can gather from them now. In fact there is evidence against that idea.


So are you saying that because one translation of the bible places Jesus' words in red, it gives them more weight and can contradict other passages? :confused:



Wonderful circular assertion here. So because people disagree with the RCC way of doing things, we're not reading the bible correctly? That's begging the question. Care to prove your assertion here?

Actually, you do need a Tradition to tell you what it means. Otherwise, you're reading it in your own vacuum, and as some have done, have figured out the Jesus wants them to set a bomb somewhere and blow up people. Yes, an extreme example. But John 6 says what we believe it says because Tradition tells us so. You take away that Tradition, and can make it mean whatever you want to think.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Metal Minister

New Year, Still Old School!
May 8, 2012
12,140
591
✟29,999.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Actually, you do need a Tradition to tell you what it means. Otherwise, you're reading it in your own vacuum, and as some have done, have figured out the Jesus wants them to set a bomb somewhere and blow up people. Yes, an extreme example. But John 6 says what we believe it says because Tradition tells us so. You take away that Tradition, and can make it mean whatever you want to think.

Not if you are properly exegeting the text. Otherwise I could make the phone book say the same thing you just said someone could make the bible say. Proper exegesis involves all of the context. Those who ignore this are abusing the scripture, not using the scripture.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.