Search results

That is completely irrelevant. Peter being rebuked just means he didn't have the absolute authority that modern Catholics assign to themselves. And Peter denying Jesus just means he wasn't infallible, and I never claimed he was. That is incorrect. After His resurrection, Jesus told the...

I never said Catholics are correct or that they have spiritual authority, I said the Pope has the physical authority over the church according to Mathew 16:19 and Isiah 22.

Good point, but the mother of Zebedee's children may not have been aware of the power structure, and if she was, she did ask about the afterlife, not the world of the living where Peter was placed as a chief apostle. And the disciples argued about who was the greatest (or best), not who was the...

You literally just admitted that Jesus made Peter the shepherd. Only shepherds can feed sheep, not other sheep, and shepherds have authority over the sheep. You cannot be held responsible for something you have no authority over. The priority of his mission doesn't limit his authority...

Peter was chief, not the only important disciple. Then you should look up why it wasn't included and who actually wrote it. All that means is that Peter did not have the unquestioned authority that modern Popes have claimed for themselves. I never said Peter was infallible.

If you agreed with me, then why are you arguing?:rolleyes:

There is nothing strange about the idea of a universal church, and there is nothing unbiblical about the dozens of verses I provided to back it up. And yet here you are arguing and falsely accusing me.

Jesus only told Peter to feed his sheep, not anyone else. Only a shepherd feeds sheep, not other sheep, meaning Jesus has given his authority (keys) to Peter. Just like in Isiah 22 a king gave the keys to his steward. I have dozens of verses backing up my argument, that's not grasping at...

I don't know about politics in Palestine, but Jesus gave Peter the authority over the other disciples in John 21:17. In Mathew 16:19 Jesus gave Peter the keys to heaven, which is the type/antitype of Isiah 22 where the posterity of the stewart (Peter) are to inherit the authority of the kingdom...

That's not an argument. The Bible is full of types and antitypes, and this is clearly the case.

The government over the nation you are in, regardless of how corrupt they are. If a corrupt government like Hammas commands people to do something ungodly, then by all means you must disobey, otherwise, you must obey everything else they say. In Mark 12:17 Jesus says - “Give to Caesar the...

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "faith". Faith is belief in the unknown, and Jesus does know the Father because he and the Father are one.

Moot point. Different manuscripts and translations contradict each other and nobody knows the true one.

1 Peter 2:13 - Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. 15For so is the will of God, that with well...

You're not answering the question.

As I've said many times, we must accept all authority unless they command something against God, then and only then we must disobey, otherwise we must obey.

That's the one I refuted with 1 Corinthians 4:15 and you never addressed my refutation.

Do you think God preserved his word perfectly in at least one set of manuscripts?

I already provided dozens of verses proving their authority, go back and read. Not all of their churches, some are more strict than others. Some are actually liberal because people vote with their wallets and the church listens. If more people joined and protested against heresies there...

It doesn't matter, the government doesn't even recognize the Bible and we still have to obey their authority according to Romans 13:1