Well, at the very least Eric and Gman get what I am aiming at.


ALL HUMAN INSTITUTIONS, when they are run by mere mortal men, that acquire power, money, manpower, and political influence will become corrupt.

If one reads the article I posted one will see this, especially if you have no historical background.

The roman church rose in power with the confluence of the Emperor adopting its dictates and making it the state religion.

The Roman Emperor was absolute ruler and power, and as absolute power corrupts absolutely, it is easy to see how the power base at Rome through the Roman bishop squashed the will of the other dominant churches that then existed.

The catholic church came about as a result of power politics, nothing less is factual. It being based in Rome was due solely to the efforts of the Emperor and his will to have his capital both the power base Temporal, but also of the Spiritual.

To deny historical fact is just plain pig headedness. Why get upset over historical facts? Who cares? It is fact that the roman church was aggressively expansionistic in its views on consolidating its power over other churches, which with the backing of the Emperor it eventually did just that.

I am sharing a historical record that shows the genesis of the catholic church. Not this silly chair of Peter nonsense that is "official" or "sanctioned" by the hierarchy of the church.


That is the purpose of this whole post... to deflate the windbags that claim singular authority and legitimacy by flying in the face of historical facts with outright balderdash.

Thats all.

Dram out

Just a small, historical note to Praetorian re: "Protestants" and the ideas of the 1500's

Augustin's debates vs. Pelagian's heresies in the third century is/was a key to the Reformer's position.  Semi-pelagianism had become accepted Roman Catholic doctrine by the Fourteenth century (and survives to this day).  That is what the "protest" was about.

Most Western denominations (with the possible exception of those that might claim Waldensian ancestry) recognize the role that the Roman church played in keeping Chiristianity alive, despite taking issue with the claims infalibility and appostolic succession/supremecy of the Vatican.

Sorry for the hijack.

Quoted: The roman church had to be dragged into court to take any action at all on its resident child lovers. Wrong again.  The Catholic Church was addressing this long before the left wing, Catholic bashing media decided to make it a big issue with half truths & innuendo...

Uh...no.

FACT: The Catholic church was busy shuttling all those perps around to muffle the noise.  It took national coverage to force them to even address it.  It'd been occurring over the course of a few decades.

You think every single report ever mentioned about it has been all lies?  How convenient.

I'm no fan of the press in general.  But occasionally, they do get it right.  I'm not buying the argument that this reporting is a conspiracy to get the poor lil' Catholic Church.  A few inside the Catholic Church were making noise about the issue, but were ignored.  Good for them.  They held to their conscience.  The organization acted to make itself appear blameless.  Bad on them.  I hope they go to scream in dark coldness for their passive complicity.

So, the Catholic Church is really Jesus' idea?  Really?  OK:

* What's w/ the halo around Mary's head, & why is she practically deified in the Catholic view?  Did Jesus consider her as such?  If so, where?

* Why are the apostles Called "saints"?  Did Jesus refer to them as "saints"?  If so, where?

* Jesus didn't seem to have much use for money, but I see an awful lot of it going into the various church caufers, the Catholic church being among the most - maybe even the most - plush.  How much $$$ is enough.  Aren't the chrches (all chrches, for that matter) sufficiently oppulent?

* Why do Catholics hold the pope to be the  "Vicar of Christ"?  Who says one person can claim such standing?  Is there a Biblical reference for this authority?

My take: The Catholic church is full of "graven images", being essentially an amalgamation of Christian & pagan views for a one-size-fits-all religion to quell the masses.

But, hey - whatever.  Believe in a teacup for all I care.  Whatever floats your boat (& their wallet).  Just all the more reason to stay away from organized religion, IMO.

Quoted: But, hey - whatever.  Believe in a teacup for all I care.  Whatever floats your boat (& their wallet).  Just all the more reason to stay away from organized religion, IMO.

Why would you concern yourself so much to take the time to post in a thread about organized religion?  Just feel the need to stir up the pot with people???Just all the more reason to stay away from organized religion threads.

Enough - I just wish he'd hurry up and return so that we can end these foolish rants. I for one am tired of the cesspool.

Quoted: Enough - I just wish he'd hurry up and return so that we can end these foolish rants. I for one am tired of the cesspool.

Our Lord commands us to "earnestly contend for the faith." "Be ready always to give an answer for the hope in you."

I know its tiring. Take courage my friend, and rally round the One who died and rose again for us.

Good grief so many errors so little time.

Garandman, you have to go back to re-look up your Aramaic. "Kepha" (Cephas) doesn't mean "little pebble"; it means big rock. "Petra" the Greek (Petra, Petros) means small pebble. You got it backward to make a theological point which is actually that the original language used by Jesus has Peter given a nick name of "big rock" which is lost when transliterated into Greek.

Hun, you labor under the presupposition that the See with authority must be the largest city, with the most folk (I guess it's a mega-church thing). Not so. The See of Rome had authority over the others not because of its relative size or political (worldly) importance but simply because that was where Peter (and Paul) ended up.

Had Peter's successor landed in Antioch then Antioch would have been the primary See. There's nothing INTRINSIC to the city on the Tiber to make it the HQ of Christ's Church. It all has to do with Peter and whomever he bequeathed his role as teacher, which is why the other Sees you named, the other 3 patriarchies had authority too - because each was heir to an apostle; Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch...

As for catholic....it's a sign of Christ's church inasmuch as he commanded HIS APOSTLES to 'go make disciples of all the nations..." that is, his church would be spread to all nations.... and of all the groups extant in the past and currently, ONLY the Catholic Church can claim organic communion with churches which span the globe; virtually all other groups were regional or national or ethnocentric only....

Jesus commanded his apostles to go out and teach... and promised to be WITH THEM always, hence his Church is apostolic.... now if you don't believe in apostolic succession, Hun, then essentially you admit that you can't be sure Jesus is with your particular branch inasmuch as Jesus' own words in the context he spoke them involved apostles going to ALL nations... and inasmuch as those 12 men DIDN'T GET TO ALL NATIONS BY 100AD, we can assume the charism they had to teach was passed on to successors...

Yes, it's messy and not as "obvious" as simply having Jesus write down his words in a book, publish it and hand it out for everyone to read and interpret on their own.... no, wait, THAT is messy. Far easier for God to inspire a few men (like his MO in the OT) than everyone, and even in the New Testment, in Acts, even while the charisms of prophecy etc were widespread, teaching authority to bind and losen was NOT.

So to conclude, Peter is the Latin of Petra (Greek) which comes from the Aramaic of Kephas which in the original means "big rock".

Apostolicity is confered by the laying on of hands, and does seem to depend largely on the accident of where the apostles ended their careers - James in Jerusalem, John in Ephesis according to some and Antioch to others... because an apostle either founded them or was there when he died (and hence his 'chair' needed replacing) that particular place had importance and his successor pride of place vis a vis newer communities.

Rome was a relatively small city, by 325, but by no means spiritually poor, and the fact that Popes didn't show up at councils doesn't mean they were n't respected as their legates were there and letters were sent to them and from them.... but again, we're trying to judge their standing according to worldy measures.

Nowhere is it stated in Catholic doctrine that the Pope is the smartest or holiest of bishops, only that he has primacy in the charism of confirming and strengthening the faith of the brethren. Not out of intrinsic power or wit but because of his being in the see of Peter whom Jesus chose to lead the flock.

After all, SOMEONE has to be the final say and judging Jesus' words to Peter it sure looked like Jesus' concept of His church had Peter in a primary role, who are we to reinvent things 1500 years later out of convenience?

Ok this one is for Master Blaster.

Get you, sir, to a Catholic church in WA. virtually ANYONE will do. Most Catholic churches in this country and indeed the world are not what we would call "opulent", indeed most do not even look as good as the foyer of the Ritz-Carleton or Hilton.

As for the Cathedrals in Europe, they've all LONG since been plundered of whatever 'wealth' they had, except perhaps John Lateran. St Peter's was SACKED in 800ad by the Muslims. It was sacked again in the 1500's BY A LUTHERAN ARMY and again in the 1700's by a French revolutionary army.

Most cathedrals need a full time staff just to keep up with their repairs, they aren't in and of themselves piles of money or generators of money, they're money pits. But they'e also beautiful and where else are Catholics supposed to go to worship? You protestants have big megachurches and we don't BEGRUDGE YOU YOUR CHURCHES.

The Holy See's budget is about $300 million....LESS than Yale or Harvard's annual budget. Less than the county I live in here in VA.

But are we wealthy in aggregate? Yeah, perhaps we are. Does this make you jealous? "We" also take care of 25% of the world's AIDS victims, and run thousands of hospitals and clinics, missions and schools too, most for the poor, paid for by Catholics, not public school monies,

Now let's enter the whole Marian thing. Halos are CULTURAL-ARTISTIC REPRESENTATIONS OF A PERSON'S HOLINESS, they are not DOCTRINE. Greco-Roman and later artists put halos around people - angels, OT and NT people, especially Jesus' head to show that in a given picture who was the holy person and who wasn't.

Nowhere in Catholic doctrine do we raise Mary to the level of Jesus - we don't worship her in Mass. But here most of your problem is a cultural one of lack of having the language and thus theology to distinguish between honor, veneration, and adoration. Or of distinguishing between praying that someone pray for me as opposed to praying to God.

You ask for my prayers is PRAYING TO ME TO PRAY FOR YOU. Prayer = asking, does it not?

Asking a fellow believer to pray for and with you is a biblical thing to do.... and since the dead are not dead in the Lord but are alive in the Lord, asking those who are "asleep in the Lord" to pray for us is not unbiblical - nor is it necromancy as we're not seeking to communicate with them, as merely raising our thoughts to them so that "where two or more are present in my name..."

Oh, and statues... yes, statues. So what? They are respentations of people who we love. Nothing more. We neither worship them or think they're anything more than nice looking represations. You confuse flowers and lighting for woriship?

Ahh, yes, again for cultural poverty. Protestants think worship = prayer, singing, kneeling, listening to a sermon.... in short, you confuse liturgy with worship or rather think the term "worship" ONLY involves the above, whereas classically, since the time of Abel, to worship God you had to sacrifice something dear to your heart. Yes, you prayed and had a liturgy, but strictly speaking, without the sacrifice, there was no worship.

The Jews had sacrificies, we Christians know that Jesus is our sacrifice and thus he is our redeemer... and where do Catholic Christians worship? At Mass - which is far different than us lighting a candle and praying before a statue or icon that reminds us of the saint or Jesus....

All the sacramentals in the world don't add up to one Sacrament. It's the old thing about simularity not being the same thing as "identical"...

Because the Mass is THE sacrifice of Jesus made present, we worship the Father in Jesus through the Holy Spirit; everything else, the rosary, prayers to saints to pray WITH US and for us.... everything else is extra.

You can be Catholic and never say the rosary,but you can't be Catholic and never go to Mass.

JusAdBellum,

Thank you for your knowledgeable and level-headed responses.  You say so much I would like to say to set people straight, but that I can't find the tact or words to express.  

Keep it up and the truth will make itself known!

Well said JustadBellum.  Brought me back to my theology classes.  

Wow.

So many factual errors.

Where to start.

I am going to tackle this elephant of wrong tomorrow.

Gotta crash.

Dram out

Quoted: Good grief so many errors so little time. Garandman, you have to go back to re-look up your Aramaic. "Kepha" (Cephas) doesn't mean "little pebble"; it means big rock. "Petra" the Greek (Petra, Petros) means small pebble. You got it backward to make a theological point which is actually that the original language used by Jesus has Peter given a nick name of "big rock" which is lost when transliterated into Greek.

Good catch - I misspoke. Christ used "petros" NOT "cephas." "Petros is rendered "piece of rock."

Be that as it may, that validates the FACT that what Jesus said He would build His church on was the truth that He is the Son of God - NOT the "little rock" Simon Petros.

I mean really, come on - you think God would actually build His church on a sinful man, rather than eternal truth?

Peter rolls in his grave every time he hears Catholics say that. Peter is just a man, no different that you or I. In fact, he was a critically flawed man - one who publicly, vehemently, with swears and curses, denied Christ. (later being reconciled)

History (I am told) records Peter in fact had himself crucified upside down - to demonstrate his subservience to Christ - the Son of God, the one who would serve as foundation to the church.

Quoted: Wow. So many factual errors. Where to start. I am going to tackle this elephant of wrong tomorrow. Gotta crash. Dram out

I will assist you, my Brother!

I have some great dirt on those nasty vicars!

The kind of dirt that NO person would reasonably associate with the personal representative of Christ's Church on earth!

Eric The(Human,AllTooHuman)Hun

Quoted: Quoted: Good grief so many errors so little time. Garandman, you have to go back to re-look up your Aramaic. "Kepha" (Cephas) doesn't mean "little pebble"; it means big rock. "Petra" the Greek (Petra, Petros) means small pebble. You got it backward to make a theological point which is actually that the original language used by Jesus has Peter given a nick name of "big rock" which is lost when transliterated into Greek. Good catch - I misspoke. Christ used "petros" NOT "cephas." "Petros is rendered "piece of rock." Be that as it may, that validates the FACT that what Jesus said He would build His church on was the truth that He is the Son of God - NOT the "little rock" Simon Petros. I mean really, come on - you think God would actually build His church on a sinful man, rather than eternal truth? Peter rolls in his grave every time he hears Catholics say that. Peter is just a man, no different that you or I. In fact, he was a critically flawed man - one who publicly, vehemently, with swears and curses, denied Christ. (later being reconciled) History (I am told) records Peter in fact had himself crucified upside down - to demonstrate his subservience to Christ - the Son of God, the one who would serve as foundation to the church.

You are saying that Jesus spoke Greek and not Aramaic?  Care to explain why you believe that?

Cephas =  Aramaic = big rock
Petra = Greek = small stone

Looking up cites for Peter being crucified upside down.  I don't recall that being a historical source, but a non-canonical book.  I will try to confirm.

Quoted:

Looking up cites for Peter being crucified upside down.  I don't recall that being a historical source, but a non-canonical book.  I will try to confirm.

You will only be able to 'confirm' that with man's traditions, not Scripture.

We have no Scriptural or historical evidence that St. Peter even visited Rome, much less that he lived and died there.

And there is great Scriptural evidence that St. Peter was never in Rome during St. Paul's writings, since he was never mentioned in any letters from St. Paul that were written in Rome.

Strange, indeed.

Eric The(Scriptural)Hun

There's so much NOT in scripture that people of all denominations do that it's not even funny.  I'll never understand how protestants think that they are free of this distinction and feel as though they are free and clear to level attacks like this...

Quoted: There's so much NOT in scripture that people of all denominations do that it's not even funny.  I'll never understand how protestants think that they are free of this distinction and feel as though they are free and clear to level attacks like this...

'Attacks'?

Maybe I've missed something, but up to this point, I haven't seen the attacks that one would expect in a thread on the Roman papacy.

And, while I cannot be certain about ALL of the Protestant denominations, I think that one of the major reasons for any 'protesting' at all is the enormity of pagan Roman traditions that were permitted to creep into the doctrines of the Roman Church in the first place.

Insofar as my own denomination is concerned, we reject everything that cannot be supported in Scripture as being clearly doctrinal.

Period.

Simple, eh?

Just as First Century Christianity was very simple.

Eric The(OldTimeReligion)Hun

Quoted: You are saying that Jesus spoke Greek and not Aramaic?  Care to explain why you believe that? Cephas =  Aramaic = big rock Petra = Greek = small stone

Jesus spoke ALL languages. He is the Son of God and knows all.

But I don't really care to explain that.

The POINT is (which Arfcom has essentially become a venue for intentionally missing the other posters point) that Jesus would NOT build His church on a sinful man (Peter, or me or you) when He could build it on eternal truth (that He Himself is the Christ, the Son of God)

To assert otherwise is against the whole of Scripture.

Was the Mosaic Law based on Moses? Not it was based on the righteousness of eternal God, eventually being fully revealed thru  Jesus Christ.

Was the Abrahamic covenant based on Abraham? No, it was based on the faithfulness of eternal God, eventually being fully revealed thru Jesus Christ..

And the ecclesia, the called out ones, commonly known as the church are built upon the foundation of Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

Quoted: There's so much NOT in scripture that people of all denominations do that it's not even funny. .

This is true.

Tradition permeates ALL religions.

Some more than others.

ALL tradition needs be subjected to the full daylight of Scripture.

How about we START with the practice of praying to Mary, or the infallibility of the Pope?

Then we can go to any number of traditions practiced by Baptists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians or Congregationalists?

Eh?

Quoted: Quoted: You are saying that Jesus spoke Greek and not Aramaic?  Care to explain why you believe that? Cephas =  Aramaic = big rock Petra = Greek = small stone Jesus spoke ALL languages. He is the Son of God and knows all. But I don't really care to explain that. The POINT is (which Arfcom has essentially become a venue for intentionally missing the other posters point) that Jesus would NOT build His church on a sinful man (Peter, or me or you) when He could build it on eternal truth (that He Himself is the Christ, the Son of God) To assert otherwise is against the whole of Scripture. Was the Mosaic Law based on Moses? Not it was based on the righteousness of eternal God, eventually being fully revealed thru  Jesus Christ. Was the Abrahamic covenant based on Abraham? No, it was based on the faithfulness of eternal God, eventually being fully revealed thru Jesus Christ.. And the ecclesia, the called out ones, commonly known as the church are built upon the foundation of Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

So you are telling me that Jesus referred to Peter in the Greek, but when he was dying on the Cross he spoke Aramaic?  

It would be a might simpler to make the argument that its a Catholic fabrication that was inserted into Scripture to bolster Rome's claim to supremacy.  Many scholars believe just that.

It seems your argument is necessary because you view Scripture as inerrant, but don't believe the Catholic church has authority.   You want the best of both worlds and make an argument that is weak  and poorly supported.

I come from a Protestant Christian background and we learned the Peter was the rock on which Jesus would build his church.   We were taught that Catholics had gone astray and that Peter practiced "first century Christianity", just like we did.  

That is a way to reconcile your views without perverting your own Bible.

Quoted: So you are telling me that Jesus referred to Peter in the Greek, but when he was dying on the Cross he spoke Aramaic?

I'm telling you it doesn't significantly matter what language Jesus spoke in, OR what language the writer wrote in, as to what Jesus was actually teaching in that  passage..

I come from a Protestant Christian background and we learned the Peter was the rock on which Jesus would build his church.   We were taught that Catholics had gone astray and that Peter practiced "first century Christianity", just like we did.   That is a way to reconcile your views without perverting your own Bible.

I'm also telling you a mere, mortal, sinful man being foundation for the church of God is a PERVERSION of the whole of Scripture - no matter who teaches such heresy.

Am I being clear?

Quoted: Quoted: There's so much NOT in scripture that people of all denominations do that it's not even funny. . This is true. Tradition permeates ALL religions. Some more than others. ALL tradition needs be subjected to the full daylight of Scripture. How about we START with the practice of praying to Mary, or the infallibility of the Pope? Then we can go to any number of traditions practiced by Baptists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians or Congregationalists? Eh?

So much ingnorance (misunderstanding), so little time.  I would have thought that the subject of Mary and the infallibility issue would have been explained so many times people would have actually gotten it.

Quoted: Quoted: So you are telling me that Jesus referred to Peter in the Greek, but when he was dying on the Cross he spoke Aramaic?   I'm telling you it doesn't significantly matter what language Jesus spoke in, OR what language the writer wrote in, as to what Jesus was actually teaching in that  passage.. I come from a Protestant Christian background and we learned the Peter was the rock on which Jesus would build his church.   We were taught that Catholics had gone astray and that Peter practiced "first century Christianity", just like we did.   That is a way to reconcile your views without perverting your own Bible. I'm also telling you a mere, mortal, sinful man being foundation for the church of God is a PERVERSION of the whole of Scripture - no matter who teaches such heresy. Am I being clear?

Except for the whole part where Jesus tells his followers to carry on his work and spread his message?  Does that mean that the scripture written by mere mortal sinful men isn't valid?  Whatever came of man being made in God's image and man being good?  You're sounding borderline gnostic with your view of man...

Quoted: Except for the whole part where Jesus tells his followers to carry on his work and spread his message?  Does that mean that the scripture written by mere mortal sinful men isn't valid?

That doesn't make ANY man foundational to the church.

When men are saved, are they saved in the name of Peter, or the name of  Jesus Christ, the Son of God?(i.e., the truth Peter proclaimed)

As such, it is the truth of Jesus being the Son of God that builds Christ's chuch.

NOT a long dead Apostle.

Whatever came of man being made in God's image and man being good?  ..

Where do you get the idea man is good? NOT from Scripture.

Quoted: So much ingnorance (misunderstanding), so little time.  I would have thought that the subject of Mary and the infallibility issue would have been explained so many times people would have actually gotten it.

There is no explaining them.

They are contrary to Scripture, in ANY context.

Mary is but a young woman God used.

The pope is but a man God has used.

Quoted: Quoted: So much ingnorance (misunderstanding), so little time.  I would have thought that the subject of Mary and the infallibility issue would have been explained so many times people would have actually gotten it. There is no explaining them. They are contrary to Scripture, in ANY context. Mary is but a young woman God used. The pope is but a man God has used.

I wasn't talking about explaining the subject, just explaining your ignorance of the subject.  I suppose you're one of those that thinks I worship statues and gets drunk during mass?

Quoted: I wasn't talking about explaining the subject, just explaining your ignorance of the subject.  I suppose you're one of those that thinks I worship statues and gets drunk during mass?

I make no suppositions about you.  Far as I know, you are a model Chrsitian, and surpass me in holy living.This isn't about you. Its about the doctrine.

You make suppostions about me, that I am ignorant on this subject.

I'd prefer to discuss the doctrine, if that's acceptable to you.

Quoted: Quoted: So you are telling me that Jesus referred to Peter in the Greek, but when he was dying on the Cross he spoke Aramaic?   I'm telling you it doesn't significantly matter what language Jesus spoke in, OR what language the writer wrote in, as to what Jesus was actually teaching in that  passage.. I come from a Protestant Christian background and we learned the Peter was the rock on which Jesus would build his church.   We were taught that Catholics had gone astray and that Peter practiced "first century Christianity", just like we did.   That is a way to reconcile your views without perverting your own Bible. I'm also telling you a mere, mortal, sinful man being foundation for the church of God is a PERVERSION of the whole of Scripture - no matter who teaches such heresy. Am I being clear?

but scripture tells us Jesus did just that.   You're being very clear in that you reject the Bible when it conflicts with your personal theology.  

Mat 16: 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16: 16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


When you look at the context of the verse in question it is apparent that he is talking about Peter (granted due to his faith) but he IS talking about Peter using a play on his name.  

I personally think its a later Catholic insertion, but a reading of the text leaves only one conclusion.  It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to twist that simple statement into something else.

If he was speaking of the eternal Truth you say he was, what did he mean in Mat 16:19?  He was giving Peter the keys to heaven, not the eternal Truth.    

Quoted: Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. If he was speaking of the eternal Truth you say he was, what did he mean in Mat 16:19?  He was giving Peter the keys to heaven, not the eternal Truth.

Nothing more than he gave to ALL beleivers in

Matt 18: 18Verily 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. 19Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

God gave ALL beleivers immensely powerful truth, that truth opening the kingdom of heaven to all men.

DO you really suppose that Peter (or ANY beleiver) himself controls entrance to heaven?

Quoted: Quoted: I wasn't talking about explaining the subject, just explaining your ignorance of the subject.  I suppose you're one of those that thinks I worship statues and gets drunk during mass? I make no suppositions about you.  Far as I know, you are a model Chrsitian, and surpass me in holy living.This isn't about you. Its about the doctrine. You make suppostions about me, that I am ignorant on this subject. I'd prefer to discuss the doctrine, if that's acceptable to you.

I'm not supposing anything about you other than your displayed ignorance of my faith, which is rather obvious based on the statements your make regarding it.  I haven't made any about you, but rather I'm trying to defend my faith from baseless claims which have been going on for hundreds of years.

Quoted: Quoted: Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. If he was speaking of the eternal Truth you say he was, what did he mean in Mat 16:19?  He was giving Peter the keys to heaven, not the eternal Truth.     Nothing more than he gave to ALL beleivers in Matt 18: 18Verily 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. 19Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. God gave ALL beleivers immensely powerful truth, that truth opening the kingdom of heaven to all men. DO you really suppose that Peter (or ANY beleiver) himself controls entrance to heaven?

I mean, really, it WAS Jesus that said what he said.  Are you telling us he didn't mean the things he said?  Or that he didn't mean what he said in what Dino pasted, but that he did mean what he said in what you pasted?

Quoted: I mean, really, it WAS Jesus that said what he said.  Are you telling us he didn't mean the things he said?  Or that he didn't mean what he said in what Dino pasted, but that he did mean what he said in what you pasted?

What Jesus said to Peter about "what  you bind on earth..." He ALSO said to the disciples inclusive, and to all believers.

Of course Jesus meant what He said.

But what He said to Peter he also said in Matthew 18.

What about that is confusing you?

Quoted: I'm not supposing anything about you other than your displayed ignorance of my faith, which is rather obvious based on the statements your make regarding it.  I haven't made any about you, but rather I'm trying to defend my faith from baseless claims which have been going on for hundreds of years.

Whatever.

If you are just gonna call me "ignorant" ther's little possibility of productive discussion.

I'm well aware of Catholic doctrine re: praying to Mary and the supposed infallibility of the pope.

And rather than actually addressing those subjects, you call me ignorant.

So much for productive discussion.

Quoted: Quoted: Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. If he was speaking of the eternal Truth you say he was, what did he mean in Mat 16:19?  He was giving Peter the keys to heaven, not the eternal Truth.     Nothing more than he gave to ALL beleivers in Matt 18: 18Verily 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. 19Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. God gave ALL beleivers immensely powerful truth, that truth opening the kingdom of heaven to all men. DO you really suppose that Peter (or ANY beleiver) himself controls entrance to heaven?

I'm not supposing anything.   For the purposes of the discussion,  I'm making the assumption the Bible is inerrant and reading it as such.  

I'll be happy to admit I think the passage is a complete fabrication and was never uttered by Jesus.    Of course you wouldn't agree with me there so that gets us nowhere.

Quoted: Quoted: I mean, really, it WAS Jesus that said what he said.  Are you telling us he didn't mean the things he said?  Or that he didn't mean what he said in what Dino pasted, but that he did mean what he said in what you pasted? What Jesus said to Peter about "what  you bind on earth..." He ALSO said to the disciples inclusive, and to all believers. Of course Jesus meant what He said. But what He said to Peter he also said in Matthew 18. What about that is confusing you?

It's amazing that dear St. Peter even used the same allusion that Jesus had made about his confession of Jesus as the Christ to others who do so, aswell, in his own writings:

To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,

Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 1 Peter 2:4-6

The church of Christ is built upon the Rock of Jesus Christ, and upon no one else.

St. Peter knew and understood this, the other Apostles knew and understood this, and the church, at least the non-Roman church, knew and understood this.

When the Portugese explorers arrived at the end of the 15th Century upon the West Coast of India, they were surprised to find native Christians, who, although they had all 27 Books of the New Testament, had never even heard of the Pope!

One must suppose that St. Thomas was one of those Christians who understood that Jesus was the Rock upon Whom His Church was built, and not St. Peter!

Hmmm?

But if y'all wish to be known as the Church of St. Peter...well, knock yourselves out!

Eric The(FirstCentury)Hun

Quoted: I'm not supposing anything.   For the purposes of the discussion,  I'm making the assumption the Bible is inerrant and reading it as such.

AS am I.

I'll be happy to admit I think the passage is a complete fabrication and was never uttered by Jesus.    Of course you wouldn't agree with me there so that gets us nowhere.

The instructive in question "What you bind of earth..." WAS given to Peter.

SOME cite that as proof Peter was special / unique.

But as I pointed out, ALL the disciples received the same instructive (Matthew 18)

People who assert Peter is special based on Matt 19 are on shaky ground. Its that simple.

Quoted: It's amazing that dear St. Peter even used the same allusion that Jesus had made about his confession of Jesus as the Christ to others who do so, aswell, in his own writings: To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 1 Peter 2:4-6 The church of Christ is built upon the Rock of Jesus Christ, and upon no one else. <snip> But if y'all wish to be known as the Church of St. Peter...well, knock yourselves out! Eric The(FirstCentury)Hun

Ayy-mayen, brother.

Well said.

Of ALL things to be disputing, this one makes the least sense to me.

When Jesus has ALL things at His disposal to build His church upon, why would He choose sinful man (Peter) over eternal bed rock truth (that He Himself is the Christ, the Son of the Living God) ??

Quoted: Quoted: It's amazing that dear St. Peter even used the same allusion that Jesus had made about his confession of Jesus as the Christ to others who do so, aswell, in his own writings: To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 1 Peter 2:4-6 The church of Christ is built upon the Rock of Jesus Christ, and upon no one else. <snip> But if y'all wish to be known as the Church of St. Peter...well, knock yourselves out! Eric The(FirstCentury)Hun Ayy-mayen, brother. Well said. Of ALL things to be disputing, this one makes the least sense to me. When Jesus has ALL things at His disposal to build His church upon, why would He choose sinful man (Peter) over eternal bed rock truth (that He Himself is the Christ, the Son of the Living God) ??

Because he said so?  He is God after all and can do what he wants no matter how much sense it makes to you...

Quoted: Quoted: When Jesus has ALL things at His disposal to build His church upon, why would He choose sinful man (Peter) over eternal bed rock truth (that He Himself is the Christ, the Son of the Living God) ?? Because he said so?  He is God after all and can do what he wants no matter how much sense it makes to you...

NO, because AS I SAID BEFORE, my interpretation is in keeping with the whole of Scripture. Namely, the nature of the Abrahamic covenant, and the giving of the Mosaic law, both of which were based NOT in Abraham, or Moses, but upon the eternal God and eternal truth.

Further, both the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic law reached their zenith in "Christ, the Son of the  Living God."  Which is the truth which Christ said He would build His church on.

My interpretation of the text is COMPLETELY in context with the rest of Scripture. Your interpretation - building the church upon a sinful man - is SO discordant with Scripture, its kinda ludicrous to even discuss it..

Quoted: Because he said so?  He is God after all and can do what he wants no matter how much sense it makes to you...

God NEVER violates His own nature - which is to bring glory to Himself.

Which is why He built His church upon the truth about Jesus Christ - NOT upon a sinful man.

Garandman,

I am having a hard time grasping your "Christ wouldn't build a church on a sinful man" statement.

Firstly, who among us is without sin?  Secondly, Christ surrounded himself with sinners.  All of the apostles were sinful in one way or another.  None were perfect in any way.  Yet Jesus chose them to be his apostles and sent them to be "fishers of men."  Additionally, Jesus eschewed the rich and pious.  He chastised the money lenders in the temple and promised to deystroy the temple and rebuild it in 3 days, a foreshadowing of His death and resurrection, but also His negating the Hebrew laws and covenants of the old testament and making a new covenant as shown in the new testament.

Mary Magdeline was a known prostitute.  Jesus sought out sinners and the sick.  The fact that he chose Peter to head His church and lead the disciples only makes sense.  What better way to show that even the worst of sinners, a tax collector could be forgiven of sin and loved by a true God of Love.  The old testament portrayed a just God, a vengeful God.  Christ 's life showed the world that God is a God of Mercy, Forgiveness and Love as well.

 

Quoted: Garandman, I am having a hard time grasping your "Christ wouldn't build a church on a sinful man" statement.

We, as sinful man, are God's tools to disseminate the Gospel.

But no one gets saved in the name of garandman, or Simon Peter, or dvr9. They get saved in the name of Jesus Christ. This is how God builds His church - in the name of Jesus Christ.

Futher, no one gets saved because Peter or garandman or anyone else is the Son of the Living God. God builds His church not on any truth about Peter, but on the truth that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God.

Were talking about what fundamental truth  does God build His church upon. It isn't anything to do with Peter. Its ALL about Jesus Christ.

God could, and has, used a jackass (a donkey) to speak the truth to men. Typically He uses sinful man. But I don't save anyone. Peter never saved anyone.

It is Jesus that brings men into His own Kingdom, His church, via the truth the He is the Son of teh Living God.

Hope this is clearer.

Quoted: Quoted: Because he said so?  He is God after all and can do what he wants no matter how much sense it makes to you... God NEVER violates His own nature - which is to bring glory to Himself. Which is why He built His church upon the truth about Jesus Christ - NOT upon a sinful man.

So if I understand you correctly, on one hand you state (correctly so) that God doesn't make mistakes, yet on the other hand, you are saying that God never intended to have His church created in the way that it was and continues today.  What He actually wanted to do was create His Church more in line with your version (not a flame, just using that term for lack of a better one) immediately.  His divine plan went awry, yet He allowed it to continue for 1500 years and only then allowed divine intervention to create the Protestant movement to correct things?  

The same could be said for the Scriptures.  Am I to believe that the Holy Scriptures, written by man through the Divine Inspiration of the Holy Spirit were somehow wrong and would therefor be leading His flock astray for 1500 years until King James took it upon himself to rewrite it?  Granted King James was a highly educated man and I believe a devout Christian, but what was his reason for the rewrite?  

I find it highly improbable that God had made a mistake.  I find it more probable that Satan exploited man's sinful nature and influenced man's decisions (both on the side of the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church) to cause a rift.  His goal is to gain souls any way possible.  This is not to say that I believe that all non-Catholics are going to hell or to imply that you feel that all non-protestants are going to hell.  I do not think that at all.  I do feel that in causing factions to argue over Gods intentions, Satan gains a victory by pulling all of our eyes off of God.  
After all, you don't have to adjust a rifle sight much to have the bullet (whose goal is to hit the target) to miss the target entirely.  Especially in this case where the target is the reward of Heaven and Eternal Life.

Quoted: The fact that he chose Peter to head His church and lead the disciples only makes sense.

If Peter is the head of the church, why did God rather use Paul to disseminate the full revelation of the Gospel? (2 books to teh Corinthians, and teh books of Galatians Ephesians, COloosains, Philippians, 2 books to Timothy and teh Thessalonians each, Titus, a book to Philemon, and quite likely Hebrews) In essence, Paul started most every church in eastern Europe - Ephesus, Macedonia, at Thessolonica, at Berea, Galatia, Phillippi, Colosse, Corinth, to name a few.

Peter  wrote 2 books, Paul wrote 20% of the Bible.

Peter started no churches (that I'm aware of )  Paul eight that I know of off the top of my head.

Peter sems to be a VERY poor head of the church.

If I'm picking sinful men as head, I'm picking Paul.

But you're not Jesus.  You're projecting your own thoughts onto God.

Quoted: So if I understand you correctly, on one hand you state (correctly so) that God doesn't make mistakes, yet on the other hand, you are saying that God never intended to have His church created in the way that it was and continues today.  What He actually wanted to do was create His Church more in line with your version (not a flame, just using that term for lack of a better one) immediately.  His divine plan went awry, yet He allowed it to continue for 1500 years and only then allowed divine intervention to create the Protestant movement to correct things?

No, you misunderstand.

God can and does use sinful men. But Peter is NOT deserving special recognition among those sinful men.

God uses truth to bring men to himself - as spoken by sinful men. NO ONE gets saved because of any merit inherent to any individual. They get saved because they embrace truth - namely that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God.

It is with that truth God builds His church. Not by ANY individual. We are but messengers.

The same could be said for the Scriptures.  Am I to believe that the Holy Scriptures, written by man through the Divine Inspiration of the Holy Spirit were somehow wrong and would therefor be leading His flock astray for 1500 years until King James took it upon himself to rewrite it?  Granted King James was a highly educated man and I believe a devout Christian, but what was his reason for the rewrite?

No.

I find it highly improbable that God had made a mistake.

I'd call it impossible.

Quoted: But you're not Jesus.  You're projecting your own thoughts onto God.

We've already established your primary contribution here is to call me "ignorant. "

As such, I'll not waste time trying the impossible - to free you from your unproductive comments and thoughts.

Quoted: Quoted: Garandman, I am having a hard time grasping your "Christ wouldn't build a church on a sinful man" statement.   We, as sinful man, are God's tools to disseminate the Gospel. But no one gets saved in the name of garandman, or Simon Peter, or dvr9. They get saved in the name of Jesus Christ. This is how God builds His church - in the name of Jesus Christ. Futher, no one gets saved because Peter or garandman or anyone else is the Son of the Living God. God builds His church not on any truth about Peter, but on the truth that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God. Were talking about what fundamental truth  does God build His church upon. It isn't anything to do with Peter. Its ALL about Jesus Christ. God could, and has, used a jackass (a donkey) to speak the truth to men. Typically He uses sinful man. But I don't save anyone. Peter never saved anyone. It is Jesus that brings men into His own Kingdom, His church, via the truth the He is the Son of teh Living God. Hope this is clearer.

I agree with you here, but this is where I think our disagreement lies.  Are you saying that you believe that Jesus entrusted Peter with His very Divinity and said "here you go, you have the power to save souls?"  

This just isn't the case.  Jesus entrusted Peter and the other disciples with the gifts of the Holy Spirit.  He further commanded them to "be fishers of men," i.e...go out and evangelize and spread the Gospel.  The act of doing so created the Christian Church.  Peter didn't set off for Rome and build the Vatican and set up shop.  

Nowhere in Catholicism does it say that a priest, bishop or the pope can save souls.  Scripture tells us the "whenever two or more gather in my name I am there."  It is the power of the Holy Spirit (Ghost) that enters the hearts of man and changes their lives.  Peter had no more power to save a soul that you or I.  BUT, Peter and the disciples had a stronger relationship with Jesus than you and I, having known Him personnally.  That is what we are called to, a strong relationship with Jesus.  Through that relationship, God/Jesus/the Holy Spirit can work through us freely.  Catholics don't have that market cornered.  

Basically, I believe that we are all clothes cut from the same cloth.  We just are worn differently.

Quoted: Mary Magdeline was a known prostitute.

Oh, no.

Sounds as if someone has been reading The DaVinci Code a little too closely and thinking that it contains 'facts.'

Mary Magdalene is NOT mentioned anywhere in the Scriptures as having been a prostitute.

That is a part of the 'tradition' of the Romans that even they have retreated from...lately.

Three decades ago, the Romans quietly admitted what critics had been saying for centuries: Magdalene's standard image as a reformed prostitute is not supported by the text of the Bible.

The Romans made Mary Magdalene a 'prostitute' at the end of the 6th Century...when for some reason or other, Pope Gregory the Great gave a sermon in which he characterized Mary Magdalene as a 'harlot.'

All we know from the Gospels is that Jesus freed her from 'seven demons.'

Apparently, this Pope never gave much thought to bearing false witness....

See where 'traditions' will bring you?

Eric The(Scriptural)Hun

Quoted: I agree with you here, but this is where I think our disagreement lies.  Are you saying that you believe that Jesus entrusted Peter with His very Divinity and said "here you go, you have the power to save souls?"

WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THAT FROM????????

I plainly said people get saved in the name of Jesus Christ, by beleiving that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God.

That truth is something ALL BELEIVERS hold, but merely as messengers. The power to save rests in God alone.

Peter is nothing special, neither are you or I.

The truth saves men, via teh operation fo God.

"For by grace are you saved, by faith...not of yourselves, it is teh gift of God"

"and you shall know the truth, and it shall set you free."

To say that Peter builds Christ's chuch is heresy. Plain and simple.

Christ builds HIS OWN church.