What if Jesus comes tomorrow and it turns out these scriptures mean exactly as they read?

[ozso]

Well, you're on the right track. The Pope is no higher than any other bishop. It is true that he carries a greater burden than other bishops, but he is, simply one of many bishops. It is scriptural. Jesus appointed 12 apostles, all with the same authority. And it is of significant historical value that the bishop of Rome Pope Clement was asked to comment on another church's problems when he sent his letter to the Corinthians.
You also need to recognize what Sacred Tradition is, vs practices, or small t tradition. And of course, we don't see it today, because this Pope often speaks to the entire Church, but mostly, he's the Bishop of Rome.

I know there's a whole lot of complicated stuff that started building up after the 4th century.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I know there's a whole lot of complicated stuff that started building up after the 4th century.

There's a lot of reasons for that, too. The movement of the capital to Constantinople, leaving a void of government in Rome, and only the Church to deal with it, for one. Invading forces for another.
The Church was pushed into the secular world after she became a legal entity, too.
And look, I hate the politics of the Catholic Church, but I believe, as you pointed out, what Jesus said "The gates of hell will not prevail against My Church." It's the faith I hold to, not the politics. I've seen some abhorrent politics! Gay bishops, jealous prelates suppressing saintly monks to name a couple. When we stick to the faith Christ taught, we're better off.

 

[ozso]

There's a lot of reasons for that, too. The movement of the capital to Constantinople, leaving a void of government in Rome, and only the Church to deal with it, for one. Invading forces for another.
The Church was pushed into the secular world after she became a legal entity, too.
And look, I hate the politics of the Catholic Church, but I believe, as you pointed out, what Jesus said "The gates of hell will not prevail against My Church." It's the faith I hold to, not the politics. I've seen some abhorrent politics! Gay bishops, jealous prelates suppressing saintly monks to name a couple. When we stick to the faith Christ taught, we're better off.

This is a long thread that started a long time ago. To be honest I've lost track of what the original discussion or argument was about.

 

[Root of Jesse]

If you've lost track, the way back is to refresh. If you've no inclination to do that, ok.

 

[Ligurian]

How is that "his words are the flesh he's talking about"?

If you don't understand the words Jesus taught His Galilean Disciples, you're at risk. Because believing foreign doctrines is spiritual adultery, called idolotry in Revelation.

Deuteronomy 13:1-3 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, 2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; 3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

 

[ozso]

If you've lost track, the way back is to refresh. If you've no inclination to do that, ok.

Well I thought this thread was about the exaltation of Peter (and thus the papacy) as the supreme head of the church. But then you said there wasn't anything special about Peter's status, that he was on the same level as any other bishop.

Root of Jesse said: ↑
The Pope is no higher than any other bishop.

 

[Ligurian]

Where did Jesus call Simon a piece of rock? Kepha doesn't mean "a piece of rock".
How many times in the New Testament is Peter called Simon, and how many times Peter? or Cephas or Kephas?

Strong's Number: G4074
Greek Base Word: Πέτρος
Usage: Peter, rock
Literally: a rock, a stone
Definition: A (piece of) rock (larger than G3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle.
Peter, rock in the Bible (156 verses). Greek: Πέτρος, petros, G4074

G3037 = lithos, a stone.

Matthew uses the word lithos, and so does John... except for that one place...

Paul uses the word cephas... a Chaldean word.
CEPHAS IN THE BIBLE

 

[bbbbbbb]

Well I thought this thread was about the exaltation of Peter (and thus the papacy) as the supreme head of the church. But then you said there wasn't anything special about Peter's status, that he was on the same level as any other bishop.

 

[Root of Jesse]

If you don't understand the words Jesus taught His Galilean Disciples, you're at risk. Because believing foreign doctrines is spiritual adultery, called idolotry in Revelation.

Deuteronomy 13:1-3 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, 2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; 3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

I agree that if you don't understand what he said, you're at risk. But what do you believe, what it is documented that the early church understood them to mean? Or some late interpretation. So the real question is ' Did Jesus give us an authority?' We believe he did, and that its the apostles and their successors.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well I thought this thread was about the exaltation of Peter (and thus the papacy) as the supreme head of the church. But then you said there wasn't anything special about Peter's status, that he was on the same level as any other bishop.

Root of Jesse said: ↑
The Pope is no higher than any other bishop.

Thats not what the thread is about. It is title What if Jesus actually meant what he said? And its a question about Matt 16 and John 6. Protestants don't believe Peter was given primacy or that we must eat Jesus flesh to have eternal life.
Pope is an office, and bishops vote other bishops into that office. Primarily, the pope ministers the diocese of Rome. He has duties to the entire Church, too. You should read up.

 

[ozso]

Thats not what the thread is about. It is title What if Jesus actually meant what he said? And its a question about Matt 16 and John 6. Protestants don't believe Peter was given primacy or that we must eat Jesus flesh to have eternal life.
Pope is an office, and bishops vote other bishops into that office. Primarily, the pope ministers the diocese of Rome. He has duties to the entire Church, too. You should read up.

I addressed the primacy of Peter and you went on about the popes. I'll repeat what I already wrote about Peter:

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Matthew 16:18-19

Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them. Matthew 18:18-19

As can be seen later on Jesus gave the other apostles the same authority he gave Peter.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I addressed the primacy of Peter and you went on about the popes. I'll repeat what I already wrote about Peter:

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Matthew 16:18-19

Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them. Matthew 18:18-19

As can be seen later on Jesus gave the other apostles the same authority he gave Peter.

Why did Jesus tell Peter first? Also, Peter is almost always named first among the apostles, or they are grouped with him. There are several reasons we call Peter the prime apostle. Jesus didn't rename the other apostles, either. We believe that the bishop is in charge of his diocese, but must remain in communion with the Bishop of Rome. But the power to bind and loose comes from Isaiah 22, a power given to the Prime Minister.

 

[Ligurian]

I agree that if you don't understand what he said, you're at risk. But what do you believe, what it is documented that the early church understood them to mean? Or some late interpretation. So the real question is ' Did Jesus give us an authority?' We believe he did, and that its the apostles and their successors.

Pretty straight-forward... that "authority" belongs to all of Jesus' Disciples.

Matthew 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. 18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Pretty straight-forward... that "authority" belongs to all of Jesus' Disciples.

Matthew 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. 18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

That passage speaks of the Church's authority. Thanks for answering my question.

 

[BobRyan]

Another poster once asked: What if Jesus comes tomorrow and it turns out these scriptures mean exactly as they read?

I agree. What if John 6 means exactly what it says? What if Matthew 16:18-20 means exactly what it says, and makes Peter the head of the apostles, and thus the entire Church, and his successors the same?

John 6 says eating literal flesh is worthless - and that Christ's WORDS are spirit and life!
Matt 16:5-12 condemns the disciples for taking the symbolism of bread too literally.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

John 6 says eating literal flesh is worthless - and that Christ's WORDS are spirit and life!
Matt 16:5-12 condemns the disciples for taking the symbolism of bread too literally.

Respectfully, you are a broken record Bob.

 

[Albion]

Why did Jesus tell Peter first? Also, Peter is almost always named first among the apostles, or they are grouped with him. There are several reasons we call Peter the prime apostle. Jesus didn't rename the other apostles, either. We believe that the bishop is in charge of his diocese, but must remain in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

I've noticed this in other of your posts. I'm referring to naming a number of significant facts that might actually prove something or other...but then, with a "We believe," the topic is abruptly switched to a different one, and yet the idea the reader is expected to get is that the former arguments have proved the new claim.

 

[Root of Jesse]

John 6 says eating literal flesh is worthless - and that Christ's WORDS are spirit and life!
Matt 16:5-12 condemns the disciples for taking the symbolism of bread too literally.

What about divine flesh, Bob? Matt 16 talks about the Pharisees and Saducees...

 

[Root of Jesse]

I've noticed this in other of your posts, too. I'm referring to naming a number of significant facts that might prove something or other...but then abruptly switching topics while still talking as though the new claim follows seamlessly and logically from what was presented before and proves it.

It's an interesting format, to say the least.

Oh, pot meet kettle, etc? At least I present facts.

 

[Albion]

Oh, pot meet kettle, etc? At least I present facts.

The point was, however, that the facts you presented might have proved something, but it was not what you made to be your conclusion.

There are a series of facts there--all true, in this case--but then with an abrupt "We believe..." you conclude that something you had NOT addressed, and to which the preceding evidence didn't apply, had been shown to be true.

We may indeed see Peter as Christ's "lead man" or the one he was counting on for some purpose or other, but to conclude that all bishops must remain in communion with him or that the authority identified in Isaiah now passes to Peter and his successors, etc. breaks new ground that you hadn't addressed in that post.