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.
As well 50 have been posted for Pauls primacy, don't think your paving some new road friend this is all recycled hogwash...from Dave Armstrong.No comment on these facts from scripture.
Too much to read, Brennin?
Take your time. I know it's harder for you because you need to add words that aren't there occasionally.
So what you don't consider Saul/Paul to be an apostle?Scripture
Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times.
So what you don't consider Saul/Paul to be an apostle?
He does you know!
He himself is in scripture 157 times SO there!
Try some non armstrong material, it all been refuted.
Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times.
I have not 'claimed' anything. I have merely stated the teaching of the Orthodox Church, the same Church which uses the Divine Liturgy Of St John Chrysostom throughout the year in every nation and language, whose Paschal sermon is still read in the Church every year. He is one of the most beloved saints in the Orthodox Church yet you claim we do not understand his writings. We read his works in the original Greek whereas your Church for centuries knew his works only in Latin translation, a language with only one quarter of the vocabulary of Greek. Who of the two would understand his words better? The Greeks or the Latins?
John
The point is that being mentioned a lot doesn't make one infallible or the ruler.....
Jack how many different people throughout the NT are called fathers, it surely isn't only Peter...I can tell you without word searching that Paul to timothy and his reference to Abraham used this so i'm not sure what the pharoahs vizier has to do with Peter? if anything it speaks again in opposition to the view you are attempting to champion.Here is another quote about these offices:
the Pharaoh's vizier.
Jack how many different people throughout the NT are called fathers, it surely isn't only Peter...I can tell you without word searching that Paul to timothy and his reference to Abraham used this so i'm not sure what the pharoahs vizier has to do with Peter? if anything it speaks again in opposition to the view you are attempting to champion.
Peter does not receive the keys UNTIL Matthew 18:18.
Matthew 18:18 when ALL the Apostles receive the same.
I am willing to consider this if you can demonstrate it.....
Understanding Matthew 16 in the context of Isaiah 22 puts an end then to the speculation of Peter being the pope and the line of succession.
One must realize that the one prior could not appoint his successor. Only the king himself could personally and directly appoint his next. Only Hezekiah could personally and directly appoint Eliakim. Shebna could not appoint his successor. That Jesus personally and directly appointed Peter and the apostles. The apostles had not power to appoint their successors. Only the king can do that. Jesus has not returned to personally and directly appoint his next in line. No matter how you guys try to squeze this into your mold it does NOT work.
I am willing to consider this if you can demonstrate it.
Your admission of plurality destroys the intended parallel of Matthew 16:19. This has already been demonstrated, and you are welcome to demonstrate a challenge.
JacktheCatholic,
Why are you standing on this nonsense as a point to argue from? Dont step in this mess. No one here has, in any satisfactory way, demonstrated that Jesus did not, in fact, personally and directly appoint Peter as steward, as noted (regardless of allusion or not) in Matthew 16. Surely no one is arguing here that Christ appointed Peter as something of a king, rather than something of a steward.
I can see the logic of the question and believe I can answer how Peter could appoint a new person to the office or for that matter the Bishops or Magestterium.
It was not more than 3 years ago that I was not sure if I should see Jesus as God.
We all learn and grow in Christ differently. We should be accepting of everyone. If Simon is hard for you to communicate with then you should do as Jesus commanded and show him charity. You get nothing for loving those who love you but to love your enemy...
Besides Simon is a friend and a Christian.
Shalom
I find no disagreement in anything you have said. I should not have presumed to advise you. I only wonder, however, if you are going to chase every evasive suggestion that is posted here, how we will end up discussing anything whatsoever. As for love and acceptance, we are not discussing Simon, we are discussing his posts.
I Don't expect them to respond to this.Chrysostom is recognized highly with the RCC as well. Do not think the Orthodox church has some kind of monopoly on him cause you do not.
My previous statement of your interpretation of Chrysostom stands.
Shalom
Quoting Chrysostom:
"Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father....this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey." (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])
"Peter the coryphaeus of the choir of apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the foundation of the faith, the base of the confession, the fisherman of the world, who brought back our race form the depth of error to heaven, he who is everywhere fervent and full of boldness, or rather of love than of boldness." (Hom de decem mille talentis, 3, vol III, 20[4])
"The first of the apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of the disciples." (Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt, 17, vol III, 517[504])
"The foundation of the Church, the vehement lover of Christ, at once unlearned in speech, and the vanquisher of orators, the man without education who closed the mouth of philosophers, who destroyed the philosophy of the Greeks as though it were a spider's web, he who ran throughout the world, he who cast his net into the sea, and fished the whole world." (In illud, Vidi dominum, 3, vol VI, 123[124])
"Peter, the base, the pillar...." (Hom Quod frequenta conueniendum sit, 5, vol XII, 466[328])
"He said not to Peter, 'If thou lovest Me, do miracles,' but, 'Feed My sheep'; and everywhere giving him more honor than the rest, with James and John, wherefore, tell me, did he prefer him?" (Hom 46[47] in Matt 3, vol VII, 480[485])
"After that grave fall (for there is no sin equal to denial) after so great a sin, He brought him back to his former honor and entrusted him with the headship of the universal church, and, what is more than all, He showed us that he had a greater love for his master than any of the apostles, for saith he: 'Peter lovest thou Me more than these?'" (Hom 5 de Poen 2, vol II, 308[311])
"He saith to him, 'Feed My sheep.' Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, and the head of the choir; for this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now, since his denial had been purged away, He entrusts him with the rule over the brethren; and the fervent love which thou hast shown throughout, and in which thou didst boast, show now; and the life which thou saidst thou wouldst lay down for Me, give for My sheep." (Hom 88[87] in Joann 1, vol VIII, 477-9[525-6])
"It was not Christ's intention to show how much Peter loved Him, because this already appeared in many ways, but how much He himself loves His Church; and He desired that Peter and we all should learn it, that we may also be very zealous in the same work. For why did God not spare His Son and only-begotten, but gave Him up, though He was His only One. That He might reconcile to Himself those who were His enemies, and make them a people for Himself. Why did He also pour forth His blood? To purchase those sheep whom he committed to Peter and his successors."
Well done, young man.Chrysostom is recognized highly with the RCC as well. Do not think the Orthodox church has some kind of monopoly on him cause you do not.
My previous statement of your interpretation of Chrysostom stands.
Shalom
Quoting Chrysostom:
"Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father....this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey." (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])
"Peter the coryphaeus of the choir of apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the foundation of the faith, the base of the confession, the fisherman of the world, who brought back our race form the depth of error to heaven, he who is everywhere fervent and full of boldness, or rather of love than of boldness." (Hom de decem mille talentis, 3, vol III, 20[4])
"The first of the apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of the disciples." (Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt, 17, vol III, 517[504])
"The foundation of the Church, the vehement lover of Christ, at once unlearned in speech, and the vanquisher of orators, the man without education who closed the mouth of philosophers, who destroyed the philosophy of the Greeks as though it were a spider's web, he who ran throughout the world, he who cast his net into the sea, and fished the whole world." (In illud, Vidi dominum, 3, vol VI, 123[124])
"Peter, the base, the pillar...." (Hom Quod frequenta conueniendum sit, 5, vol XII, 466[328])
"He said not to Peter, 'If thou lovest Me, do miracles,' but, 'Feed My sheep'; and everywhere giving him more honor than the rest, with James and John, wherefore, tell me, did he prefer him?" (Hom 46[47] in Matt 3, vol VII, 480[485])
"After that grave fall (for there is no sin equal to denial) after so great a sin, He brought him back to his former honor and entrusted him with the headship of the universal church, and, what is more than all, He showed us that he had a greater love for his master than any of the apostles, for saith he: 'Peter lovest thou Me more than these?'" (Hom 5 de Poen 2, vol II, 308[311])
"He saith to him, 'Feed My sheep.' Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, and the head of the choir; for this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now, since his denial had been purged away, He entrusts him with the rule over the brethren; and the fervent love which thou hast shown throughout, and in which thou didst boast, show now; and the life which thou saidst thou wouldst lay down for Me, give for My sheep." (Hom 88[87] in Joann 1, vol VIII, 477-9[525-6])
"It was not Christ's intention to show how much Peter loved Him, because this already appeared in many ways, but how much He himself loves His Church; and He desired that Peter and we all should learn it, that we may also be very zealous in the same work. For why did God not spare His Son and only-begotten, but gave Him up, though He was His only One. That He might reconcile to Himself those who were His enemies, and make them a people for Himself. Why did He also pour forth His blood? To purchase those sheep whom he committed to Peter and his successors."
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?