Catholic Heresy (for the record)

[valiant]

Except it wasn't just Tertullian. Several others

Yes they probably all got it from Tertullian. So if he got it wrong so did they. On a question like this CERTAINTY is required.

And NONE of them said that Peter was a continuing Bishop in Rome. Indeed Rome did not have a monarchical bishop (overall bishop) until about 150 AD Clement did not know of one. Ignatius of Antioch did not know of one.

 

[mattp0625]

Prove they all copied each other
you hold yourself to a different standard- eg. Asserting several historians copied each other

 

[valiant]

Your Protestant fallible interpretation. Adding words that aren't there again

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL ONLY MATT GETS IT RIGHT BOWS DOWN TO MATT LOL LOL LOL LOL Matt who never explains his quotes.

 

[Elin]

I'm thinking Jesus made a distinction in Mt 16:19 between Peter (petros, small rock) and this rock (petra, mass of rock) because this rock is Jesus himself (Mt 21:42;
Eph 2:20-21; Ac 4:11; Ro 9:32; 1Pe 2:6) on whom the church is built.

It is the body of Christ, and no one else on earth, which has the keys to the kingdom of heaven; i.e., the gospel, binding and loosing, in the preaching of the gospel, what has been bound in heaven and what has been loosed in heaven (Jn 3:18, 36).

The church that Jesus founded was not in Rome but of all places Jerusalem.

The RCC will not address your point about Christ being the rock upon which the church is founded because you went and gave additional supporting references from the bible.

Par for the course for some. . .

 

[SAVAS]

Among those I know who have converted are two Catholic ex-nuns and a Catholic ex-priest.

I'm not comfortable with involving anyone with this website.

Im talking about a conversion from Orthodoxy

 

[mattp0625]

Elin- I wouldnt blame folks for not addressing personal Protestant interpretations that add words that don't exist in scripture.

so Jesus said: you are Peter, and I build the church on myself? It's a theory, but not one based on scripture. Problematic for Sola Scriptura

 

[SAVAS]

The church that Jesus founded was not in Rome but of all places Jerusalem.

The RCC will not address your point about Christ being the rock upon which the church is founded because you went and gave additional supporting references from the bible.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

They were first called Christians in Antioch. Modern day Turkey I believe

 

[Elin]

Among those I know who have converted are two Catholic ex-nuns and a Catholic ex-priest.

I'm not comfortable with involving anyone with this website.

BTW the Catholic ex-priest went to work in the Charles Stanley ministries.

Im talking about a conversion from Orthodoxy

Don't know any. . .only from Roman Catholicism.

 

[SAVAS]

Among those I know who have converted are two Catholic ex-nuns and a Catholic ex-priest.

I'm not comfortable with involving anyone with this website.

BTW the Catholic ex-priest went to work in the Charles Stanley ministries.

...Again, that's not necessarily "many" as you put it before. Unless you will now say you made a broadcast. Ill buy it.

 

[Elin]

I'm thinking Jesus made a distinction in Mt 16:19 between Peter (petros, small rock) and this rock (petra, mass of rock) because this rock is Jesus himself (Mt 21:42;
Eph 2:20-21; Ac 4:11; Ro 9:32; 1Pe 2:6) on whom the church is built.

It is the body of Christ, and no one else on earth, which has the keys to the kingdom of heaven; i.e., the gospel, binding and loosing, in the preaching of the gospel, what has been bound in heaven and what has been loosed in heaven (Jn 3:18, 36).

Jesus said: you are Peter, and I build the church on myself?

Yep. . .Jesus said you are a small rock and on the massive stone I will build my church.

Jesus used two different words, petros and petra, for a distinction between Peter and the cornerstone of the church.

 

[JesusIsAll]

BTW the Catholic ex-priest went to work in the Charles Stanley ministries.

So one of them finally got a real job? Hallelujah! In defense of Catholicisn, though, Father Brown Mysteries on PBS are pretty good. On the other hand, when the Polish housekeeper, Suzy, didn't come back the second season, this did stir some Protestant resentment.

 

[mattp0625]

Oh- and where did you prove feminine vs masculine language again? And where did you prove Greek vs Aramaic? From the bible? Isn't that your only authority? Chapter and verse for your proof please.

 

[valiant]

Reply to Matt's List trying to prove that Peter was the head of the Apostles.

Acts 9: Saul's conversion; Peter raises the dead and heals the paralyzed.

But as we have seen all the Apostles were constantly healing (2.43; 4.33; 5.12). . This is only mentioned so as to explain that Peter was visiting the churches of Judea and why he was in Joppa when Cornelius sent for him.. Surely any leader would stay in Jerusalem organising things? Clearly Peter was not needed.

Acts 10: Peter, at God's direct command, opens the door to the Gentiles.

Because he was the one among the Apostles who was closest to hand.

Acts 11: The Judaizers came to Peter to complain.

Of course because they saw Peter as having infringed. LOL you do try it on.

Acts 12: Peter is arrested and saved by an angel.

And James was the first to be arrested. May suggest HE was the leader?

Acts 15: Peter decides the issue at the Council of Jerusalem, and after he finishes speaking, "all the assembly kept silence."

And you wonder why I call you dishonest? What does it say next (you always leave that out) It says JAMES stood up and gave the final decision. JAMES was in charge, not Peter.

So all you have 'proved' is that others took precedence to Peter

 

[Elin]

...Again, that's not necessarily "many" as you put it before. Unless you will now say you made a broadcast. Ill buy it.

Those three were only the clergy.

I know of more lay conversions.

 

[mattp0625]

You edited out most of the list, quite conveniently :

• Acts 1: Peter decides that Judas should be replaced.
• Acts 2: Peter speaks to the crowds at Pentecost and converts thousands.
• Acts 3: Peter heals a lame man and again addresses the crowds.
• Acts 4: Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, addresses the Jewish rulers, priests, and scribes.
• Acts 5: Peter speaks the death sentence upon Ananias and Sapphira.
• Acts 8: Peter rebukes Simon.
• Acts 9: Saul's conversion; Peter raises the dead and heals the paralyzed.
• Acts 10: Peter, at God's direct command, opens the door to the Gentiles.
• Acts 11: The Judaizers came to Peter to complain.
• Acts 12: Peter is arrested and saved by an angel.
• Acts 15: Peter decides the issue at the Council of Jerusalem, and after he finishes speaking, "all the assembly kept silence."

• Peter walked on water
• Peter called for a replacement to Judas
• Peter settled the issue at the Council of Jerusalem
• Peter was appointed, by Jesus, as shepherd of Jesus' flock
• Jesus prayed specifically for Peter
• Peter spoke for the Apostles on the Day of Pentecost
• Peter received a special vision from God to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles
• Peter was given a special revelation about Jesus being the Messiah
• Peter was given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven
• Jesus paid the temple tax for Himself and Peter only
• Paul comes to Peter to consult with him
• Peter generally speaks for all the Apostles
• Peter spoke judgment upon Ananias and Sapphira
• Peter has his name changed to "Rock."

 

[Elin]

So one of them finally got a real job? Hallelujah! In defense of Catholicisn, though,
Father Brown Mysteries on PBS are pretty good. On the other hand, when the Polish housekeeper, Suzy, didn't come back the second season, this did stir some Protestant resentment.

I have ish-ues with Father Brown. . .

 

[SAVAS]

Those three were only the clergy.

I know of more lay conversions.

I see. God bless them.

 

[Elin]

Oh- and where did you prove feminine vs masculine language again?

Greek ain't Latin. . .

 

[SAVAS]

In 2 Tim 3:16, do we agree that he was speaking of OT scripture since obviously the NT wasn't canon yet?

 

[valiant]

Elin- I wouldnt blame folks for not addressing personal Protestant interpretations that add words that don't exist in scripture.

so Jesus said: you are Peter, and I build the church on myself? It's a theory, but not one based on scripture. Problematic for Sola Scriptura

I suggest you consult your beloved early church fathers. Of those who spoke of Matt 16 forty four said that the rock was the statement Peter had made that Jesus was the Christ the Son of the living God, eighteen said it was Peter and seventeen said it was Christ.

So unless they are unreliable your interpretation loses hands down.

Augustine of Hippo in his younger days supported Peter, but in his later days, when he grew wiser, he altered his view and said that petra referred to the statement that Peter had made that He was the Christ, the son of the living God.

I don't suppose you'll be honest and admit you were wrong, but at least we will now know the truth about you