Why can't you put up one in fron of me?
"when the cat's away, the mice will play,"
Do protestants have a reasonable non-Roman-Catholic explanation for John 20:22-23?
- Thread starter PaulThomson
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
"when the cat's away, the mice will play,"
I did not say that petra was Jesus referring to Himself to Jesus. What I said was -
PaulThomson said:
"You are Petros (a rock) and upon this petra (bedrock) I will build my church, And the gates of hades will not prevail against it." Which does not on its face identify Petros as the petra." Contextually, Peter's confession,"You are the Christ, the Son of God" looks like the bedrock upon which the church is founded.
All Christians base their membership in Christ on holding to this confession. And this confession is not unique to Roman Catholicism or any other Christian sect.
Come on, Beecham. A bishop writing to another church giving advice does not constitute a claim to being the supreme bishop over all bishops. Please try to use reason.
Paul wrote to many churches giving them instruction. was the supreme bishop in the church universal. James wrote to the gentile churches regarding practices that the Jerusalem church were enjoining on them. Does that make James the supreme bishop in the church universal? I'm looking for a citation where a bishop of Rome first claims to be the head bishop over all other bishops. You don't have one. But you are claiming such was the claim of Peter and Roman bishops from the beginning, without any such proof.
Who you were addressing is irrelevant to whether your argument to @decipher is rational.
Whether @decipher is Orthodox is irrelevant to whether your argument to him was rational.
The fact is that the Roman Catholic sect only began when some later century bishop of Rome began to arrogate to himself primacy over all other bishops, something Jesus commanded His disciples never to do.
Mar 10:42
But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
Mar 10:43
But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
Mar 10:44
And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
When someone claims to be leader, he sets things up for division, because those who do not agree with his claim to leadership will become a sect outside the pretender's newly constituted sect.
Yeah,
We then see, at the council meeting in Jerusalem, James the brother of Jesus preside over the council that included Peter.
After much discussion on the matter of circumcision, Peter speaks, Paul and Barnabas speak, and then the council goes quiet. James begins with “Brothers, listen to me."
James then explains how Peter's words aligned with what was already written by the prophets.
He then concludes with “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God."
There is no more discussion on the matter. The apostles, elders, and the whole church follow the decree of James the brother of Jesus.
If Peter were the first pope the interaction would have been much different.
P.S. Isn't it amazing how one passage takes 2 large swings at the Roman cult. 1st, Peter is not the pope but then secondly, James the brother of Jesus is in charge. Here we have James, not only in charge over their supposed pope but the brother, from Mary, of Jesus.
*Comes back in with the breeze blowing in his hair...
And another thing...
In Matthew 13 we have this verse: “Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?”
Now, the Roman cult will say that the words for "brothers" (adelphos) and "sisters" (adelphē) can mean "close relative". Sure they can...but the word literally means "from the same womb".
But don't you think that the Spirit would have chosen better words in order to protect Mary's virginity... if indeed she had no more children?
The word for "brother" is the same word used in this passage:
"Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother (adelphos); James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother (adelphos)..."
And they have no issue with saying that Andrew was Peter's brother and that John was the brother of James... from the same womb.
I mean it's a pretty big deal according to the Roman church; that Mary had no more children. You'd think the Spirit would have taken extra steps to protect her chastity.
And another thing...
In Matthew 13 we have this verse: “Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?”
Now, the Roman cult will say that the words for "brothers" (adelphos) and "sisters" (adelphē) can mean "close relative". Sure they can...but the word literally means "from the same womb".
But don't you think that the Spirit would have chosen better words in order to protect Mary's virginity... if indeed she had no more children?
The word for "brother" is the same word used in this passage:
"Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother (adelphos); James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother (adelphos)..."
And they have no issue with saying that Andrew was Peter's brother and that John was the brother of James... from the same womb.
I mean it's a pretty big deal according to the Roman church; that Mary had no more children. You'd think the Spirit would have taken extra steps to protect her chastity.
I don't understand why you put up such comment!
I don't see this Catholic church would teach different doctrine from other Catholic churches.
The order and rituals for each mass is uniform.
Catholic priests utter essentially the same core words in the Mass, as most of the liturgy is strictly prescribed by the Church in the official ritual books, such as the Roman Missal.
Even when I attend a mass in foreign country, the priest does not speak my language and yet I know what he is doing.
I see you no point in making such comment without reasons.
If you find nothing to talk back, keep silent will do.
Posting the same passage again and again does not make your point clear.
You may think of rewording or seek a better way to present your argument.
I already presented two in #337.
The church in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD when Roman sacked Jerusalem.
Why we don't find letters written by the Church in Ephesus or Church in Corinth to instruct Church of Rome what Peter should do, or gave instructions to the other churches?
Peter and Paul were in Church of Rome.
Many of Paul's letters, particularly the "Prison Epistles," were written while he was imprisoned in Rome (around 60–62 AD). These include Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon.
In practice, there are enormous doctrinal differences in the Catholic churches around the world. Try to hide it all you want, but we aren't fooled.
The church in Jerusalem was not a Catholic Church. It was made up of Jews only, there were no gentiles in the church yet.
First you agreed 'brothers' can mean close relatives by saying "Sure they can...."
But next, you insist 'brothers' must literally mean "from the same womb"!!
Don't you see what a contradictory argument you have made??
Read your bible!
Genesis 11:26
Now these are the generations o f Terah: Terah beg at Abram,Nahor, andHaran;and Haran beg at Lot.
This verse tells us that Abram is the uncle of Lot: Abram is the brother of Lot's father. But in another verse, Abram is called Lot's "brother":
Genesis 14:12,14
And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom ,and his goods, and departed. And when Abram heard that his brother [Lot] was taken captive ,he armed his trained servants ,bornin his own house ,three hundred and eighteen ,and pursued them to Dan.
It is the KJV which actually translated Lot the brother of Abram!
Now it is the Protestant believers who insist 'brother' must literally means "from the same womb".
Read your bible!
In Matthew 13:55-56, four men are named as the brothers (adelphos) of Jesus – James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude.
But if you cross reference Matthew 13:55-56 with John 19:25, it says that at the cross were present the mother (the Blessed Virgin Mary) of Jesus, and her sister Mary (the wife of Clopas), and Mary of Magdala! That is 3 Mary’s at the foot of the cross!
Why is this significant? Because in Matthew 27:56, we learn Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph, the cousins, not brothers, of Jesus.