|
Post by StAnne on Apr 25, 2014 22:07:20 GMT -5
Well there you have it folks. Mary was a perpetual virgin because the RCC said she was. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.* Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Mt. 16:18-19
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 25, 2014 23:10:29 GMT -5
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.* Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Mt. 16:18-19 The Keys of the kingdom is given NOT ONLY to Peter but to ALL his apostles including Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, Titus. Paul wrote in II Cor. 5:18-21 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
The Keys of the kingdom is given NOT ONLY to PeterThe keys and the power to bind and loose only to Peter in Mt 16:19. Singular you. second pers. sing. pers. pronoun biblehub.com/greek/4771.htmand has committed to us the word of reconciliationBinding and loosing especially to hear and forgive or not forgive sin and to govern the Church later given to the Twelve in Mt 18:18 - as to the Church.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2014 23:14:00 GMT -5
Only, Peter never promoted anything REMOTELY LIKE Catholism. He warned that wolves would come in and not spare his flock. And as far back as a Polycarp, you see these wolves creating their own doctrines.
The strategy is thus: 1 - argue that Peter, not his Revelation, is the foundation. 2 - argue that the church in 2nd Century history is the same one Peter belonged to. 3 - argue this 2nd Century church is the same one as today.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 25, 2014 23:25:10 GMT -5
Only, Peter never promoted anything REMOTELY LIKE Catholism. He warned that wolves would come in and not spare his flock. And as far back as a Polycarp, you see these wolves creating their own doctrines. The strategy is thus: 1 - argue that Peter, not his Revelation, is the foundation. 2 - argue that the church in 2nd Century history is the same one Peter belonged to. 3 - argue this 2nd Century church is the same one as today. You mean like the new start up churches who continued to come in even after all the splitting off prior-to and after the Reformation - and who preached a different gospel? Polycarp is a Saint of the Church - is he a Saint of your church? St. Polycarp(d. 156) Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna (modern Izmir, Turkey), disciple of St. John the Apostle and friend of St. Ignatius of Antioch was a revered Christian leader during the first half of the second century. St. Ignatius, on his way to Rome to be martyred, visited Polycarp at Smyrna, and later at Troas wrote him a personal letter. The Asia Minor Churches recognized Polycarp’s leadership by choosing him as a representative to discuss with Pope Anicetus the date of the Easter celebration in Rome—a major controversy in the early Church. Polycarp was recognized as a Christian leader by all Asia Minor Christians—a strong fortress of faith and loyalty to Jesus Christ. His own strength emerged from his trust in God, even when events contradicted this trust. Living among pagans and under a government opposed to the new religion, he led and fed his flock. Like the Good Shepherd, he laid down his life for his sheep and kept them from more persecution in Smyrna. He summarized his trust in God just before he died: “Father... I bless Thee, for having made me worthy of the day and the hour... .” (Martyrdom, Chapter 14). www.americancatholic.org/features/saints/saint.aspx?id=1300
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 25, 2014 23:35:11 GMT -5
Well that was interesting. More on the Easter celebration in the early church ... ... In the mid–second century, the practice in the Roman province of Asia was for the pre-Paschal fast to end and the feast to be held on the 14th day (the full moon) of the Jewish lunar month of Nisan, the date on which the Passover sacrifice had been offered when the Second Temple stood, and "the day when the people put away the leaven".[5] Those who observed this practice were called Quartodecimani, Latin for "fourteenthers", because of holding their celebration on the fourteenth day of Nisan.
The practice had been followed by Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna (c. 69 – c. 155), one of the seven churches of Asia, and a disciple of John the Apostle, and by Melito of Sardis (d. c. 180).[5] Irenaeus says that Polycarp visited Rome when Anicetus was its bishop (c. 153–68), and among the topics discussed was this divergence of custom. Irenaeus noted:
Neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it, as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.[6] But neither considered that the disagreement required them to break off communion and initiate a schism. Indeed, "Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church."[6]
Sozomen also states: As the bishops of the West did not deem it necessary to dishonor the tradition handed down to them by Peter and by Paul, and as, on the other hand, the Asiatic bishops persisted in following the rules laid down by John the evangelist, they unanimously agreed to continue in the observance of the festival according to their respective customs, without separation from communion with each other. They faithfully and justly assumed, that those who accorded in the essentials of worship ought not to separate from one another on account of customs.[7] A modern source says that the discussion between Polycarp and Anicetus in Rome took place within the framework of a synod.[8]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartodecimanism
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2014 23:43:20 GMT -5
Quote - "Polycarp is a Saint of the Church - is he a Saint of your church?"
Firstly, we don't have 'SAINTS' in the same manner as you guys do. Secondly, I wouldn't recognize anyone as "Christian" who argued, like the foolish Galatians, who quote "... are observing special days and months and seasons and years!"
No dates, no Passover, no Easter, no money, no priests, no temples, is what Peter and his church believed. How can Peter belong to you?
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 26, 2014 0:12:34 GMT -5
Quote - "Polycarp is a Saint of the Church - is he a Saint of your church?" Firstly, we don't have 'SAINTS' in the same manner as you guys do. Secondly, I wouldn't recognize anyone as "Christian" who argued, like the foolish Galatians, who quote " ... are observing special days and months and seasons and years!"No dates, no Passover, no Easter, no money, no priests, no temples, is what Peter and his church believed. How can Peter belong to you? Well, you did bring Polycarp into the discussion. And, he is also a Saint of the Orthodox Church. But to the gist of your question about Peter - I believe the answer follows - even though it seems there was more disagreement which eventually brought them to the Council of Nicea ... ...they unanimously agreed to continue in the observance of the festival according to their respective customs, without separation from communion with each other. They faithfully and justly assumed, that those who accorded in the essentials of worship ought not to separate from one another on account of customs.[7] ...
... The First Ecumenical Council, held in 325 at Nicaea, declared the Sunday after 14 Nisan the sole official date. In a letter to the bishops who had not been present, Emperor Constantine I said that it had been decided to adopt a uniform date, rejecting the custom of the Jews, who had crucified Jesus and whose practice often meant that two passovers were celebrated in the same solar year: It was resolved by the united judgment of all present, that this feast ought to be kept by all and in every place on one and the same day. For what can be more becoming or honorable to us than that this feast, from which we date our hopes of immortality, should be observed unfailingly by all alike, according to one ascertained order and arrangement? And first of all, it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul. For we have it in our power, if we abandon their custom, to prolong the due observance of this ordinance to future ages, by a truer order, which we have preserved from the very day of the passion until the present time. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartodecimanism With this word from newadvent.com ... What is perhaps most important to remember, both in the solution adopted in 525 and in that officially put forward at the time of the reform of the Calendar by Gregory XIII, is this, that the Church throughout held that the determination of Easter was primarily a matter of ecclesiastical discipline and not of astronomical science. www.newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 0:15:55 GMT -5
StAnne, I hope you aren't another "foolish Galatian" because "fool" is a serious charge against people who were ALREADY reverting to Jewish and Pagan customs.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 26, 2014 0:22:04 GMT -5
StAnne, I hope you aren't another "foolish Galatian" because "fool" is a serious charge against people who were ALREADY reverting to Jewish and Pagan customs. It wasn't whether they should celebrate Easter - it was when they should celebrate it. For we have it in our power, if we abandon their custom, to prolong the due observance of this ordinance to future ages, by a truer order, which we have preserved from the very day of the passion until the present time. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartodecimanismen.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuartodecimanismWhat is perhaps most important to remember, both in the solution adopted in 525 and in that officially put forward at the time of the reform of the Calendar by Gregory XIII, is this, that the Church throughout held that the determination of Easter was primarily a matter of ecclesiastical discipline and not of astronomical science. www.newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 0:30:10 GMT -5
Quote - "It wasn't whether they should celebrate Easter - it was when they should celebrate it."
I understand that. But Easter was something added to Christianity by people clearly not a part of the Apostolic Church. There is only ONE holy day in the New Testament - Sunday. Easter and its ilk are not New Testament ideas, nor were they Apostolic Church practices.
But certainly, they were warned against.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 26, 2014 0:48:41 GMT -5
The Keys of the kingdom is given NOT ONLY to PeterThe keys and the power to bind and loose only to Peter in Mt 16:19. Singular you. Can you tell us What was the Power of binding and loosing which Jesus gave ONLY to Peter? and NOT to the 12 and Paul/Barnabas. Can you give us two examples of power to bind and loose that Peter had that Paul/Barnabas didn't have. You (or anyone else who wishes to do so) may read at the link. The three strands of rock, steward, and shepherd are woven in and through the whole of Scripture, coming into focus in the life of Jesus Christ who is the true Rock, the King of the Kingdom and Good Shepherd, and who hands his authority on earth to Peter until he comes again. www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/peter%E2%80%99s-authority
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 26, 2014 1:04:18 GMT -5
Quote - "It wasn't whether they should celebrate Easter - it was when they should celebrate it." I understand that. But Easter was something added to Christianity by people clearly not a part of the Apostolic Church. There is only ONE holy day in the New Testament - Sunday. Easter and its ilk are not New Testament ideas, nor were they Apostolic Church practices. But certainly, they were warned against. This was particularly interesting - we have Pope and presbyters and other apostles ... disputing which day or days to celebrate the Easter. Neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it, as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.[6] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartodecimanism It sounds to me as if Easter was indeed celebrated by the Church from " the time of the passion to the present time" - and that regardless of disagreement on the customs that they remained in communion - and eventually settled to the same day of celebration of Easter.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 26, 2014 1:06:59 GMT -5
You (or anyone else who wishes to do so) may read at the link. The three strands of rock, steward, and shepherd are woven in and through the whole of Scripture, coming into focus in the life of Jesus Christ who is the true Rock, the King of the Kingdom and Good Shepherd, and who hands his authority on earth to Peter until he comes again. www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/peter%E2%80%99s-authority That was RCC teaching, But Peter died 2000 yrs ago. I believe Paul had made greater impact on Christianity than Peter. He was guiding the Church in the right direction. Paul had done greater work on the Gentiles than Peter.The authority was conferred by Christ upon the Chair of Peter - Peter and his valid successors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 1:17:00 GMT -5
StAnne, you are refering to people who were not a part of the Apostolic Church in the New Testament. You are refering to people WHO CLAIMED TO BE MEMBERS in the 2nd Century. But lots of people made such claims.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 26, 2014 1:27:28 GMT -5
StAnne, you are refering to people who were not a part of the Apostolic Church in the New Testament. You are refering to people WHO CLAIMED TO BE MEMBERS in the 2nd Century. But lots of people made such claims. " John the disciple of the Lord and the other apostles" plus Polycarp is reference enough for me to know that the Church upon which Jesus sent the Holy Spirit at Pentecost is the one indicated in the quotes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 3:28:36 GMT -5
I covered this in summary in "What happened to these People?"
I believe the answer to this question can be found in a guy called Polycarp (AD 69–155) His claim to fame was that he was John's disciple, and John "ordained him bishop of Smyrna." But John said nothing about Polycarp.
From John to Polycarp was the disruption in theology.
Polycarp could easily (and I put it, necessarily) have been an apostate of John. "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us." 1 John 2:19.
To John the "anti-Christ" included people who took on the name of Christ but lived "anti" to Jesus.
John said nothing about "Bishops" or to "ordain." That's Roman Catholic talk. Polycarp argued with another "bishop" over the date for what became "Easter." John certainly had nothing to do with observing days and months and years. "how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.…" (Galatians 4:10)
And Polycarp, or those who followed him, were right into this saint worship and martyr narratives. (we have no idea not only of what happened to nearly all the apostles, but we aren't even sure if they are the authors of the Gospels named after them.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 3:29:59 GMT -5
and this one.
So I believe that those who venerated Poylcarp had already diverged from the Apostolic church. These Polycarp people were the "Jews" mentioned by the writers of the Epistles - people who wanted to go back to the symbols of the Old Testament by amending these symbols to be Christian ones - as they later did with Pagan symbols.
So the Apostolic church continued largely unnoticed by the victors of religious history. It was later to be largely destroyed in many countries by persecutions and inquisitions.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 26, 2014 9:18:29 GMT -5
The authority was conferred by Christ upon the Chair of Peter - Peter and his valid successors. Matthew chapter 16 Jesus appointed Peter to be the leader of the circumcision/Jews believers. Jesus appointed Paul to be leader to bring the gospel to the Gentiles people in Acts 9 and the 12 apostles agree Gal. 2:7-9 Paul was the leader among the Gentiles apostles Titus, Timothy, and others. Matthew 16 is but one place - although a very powerful one if you know what it's really saying. But ... Scripture
The Primacy of Peter in Scripturescripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 26, 2014 9:27:48 GMT -5
I covered this in summary in "What happened to these People?"I believe the answer to this question can be found in a guy called Polycarp (AD 69–155)His claim to fame was that he was John's disciple, and John " ordained him bishop of Smyrna."But John said nothing about Polycarp. From John to Polycarp was the disruption in theology.Polycarp could easily (and I put it, necessarily) have been an apostate of John. " They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us."1 John 2:19. To John the "anti-Christ" included people who took on the name of Christ but lived "anti" to Jesus. John said nothing about "Bishops" or to "ordain." That's Roman Catholic talk. Polycarp argued with another "bishop" over the date for what became "Easter." John certainly had nothing to do with observing days and months and years. " how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.…" (Galatians 4:10) And Polycarp, or those who followed him, were right into this saint worship and martyr narratives. (we have no idea not only of what happened to nearly all the apostles, but we aren't even sure if they are the authors of the Gospels named after them.) Yeah - it's difficult for you to see the early church so obviously catholic, isn't it. Also going against your argument is that so many of the Apostolic Fathers and those beyond them are unanimous in what they believed and taught. They went out from us, but they did not really belong to usBut, here's a bit more on Polycarp - and about those who 'went out from them' ... By his letter, and by his widespread moral authority, Polycarp combated the Marcionites (from Rome) and frustrated their attempts to establish Churches in Roman Asia. That sect advocated a rejection of the Hebraic Old Testament deity for the New Testament God. He also struggled against the Valentinian communities, esoteric Gnostic groups that claimed religious salvation exclusively through their arcane spiritual knowledge. Polycarp's anti-Gnostic thesis, an exemplary statement of post-apostolic theology, refuted the sectarian argument that God's incarnation in Christ, his death, and Resurrection were all imaginary phenomena of purely moral or mythological significance. www.ntcanon.org/Polycarp.shtml
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 26, 2014 9:40:55 GMT -5
I covered this in summary in "What happened to these People?"I believe the answer to this question can be found in a guy called Polycarp (AD 69–155)His claim to fame was that he was John's disciple, and John " ordained him bishop of Smyrna."But John said nothing about Polycarp. But others of the Early Fathers also testify that Polycarp was discipled by John.From John to Polycarp was the disruption in theology.No. Actually we see first-hand what their theology really was.John said nothing about "Bishops" or to "ordain." That's Roman Catholic talk. Paul whom you love to cite, said a LOT about NT bishops and to 'ordain', especially in a passage to Timothy where he spoke of 'laying hands on Timothy and the presbyters also laying hands; and for Timothy to be careful on whom he (Timothy) layed hands' - and in several other passages.Polycarp argued with another "bishop" over the date for what became "Easter." They hammered it out - remained in unity as the quote says - 'from the passion to the present time' - and even to our present time. Amazing, isn't it.John certainly had nothing to do with observing days and months and years. ... You wish - but that's not what the quote clearly states - The Easter was celebrated - then - and still is. John did nothing wrong in so celebrating - it is what the Church did from the first Easter Sunday.And Polycarp, or those who followed him, were right into this saint worship and martyr narratives. The early church did venerate the saints - it doesn't help your credibility to say worship when it wasn't and isn't. 'so great a cloud of witnesses...' (Heb 12:1)
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 26, 2014 9:49:02 GMT -5
and this one.
So I believe that those who venerated Poylcarp had already diverged from the Apostolic church. These Polycarp people were the "Jews" mentioned by the writers of the Epistles - people who wanted to go back to the symbols of the Old Testament by amending these symbols to be Christian ones - as they later did with Pagan symbols. So the Apostolic church continued largely unnoticed by the victors of religious history. It was later to be largely destroyed in many countries by persecutions and inquisitions. So I believe that those who venerated Poylcarp had already diverged from the Apostolic church.Umm no. There was (and still is) the Apostolic church - and then there were those who diverged. By his letter, and by his widespread moral authority, Polycarp combated the Marcionites (from Rome) and frustrated their attempts to establish Churches in Roman Asia. That sect advocated a rejection of the Hebraic Old Testament deity for the New Testament God. He also struggled against the Valentinian communities, esoteric Gnostic groups ... www.ntcanon.org/Polycarp.shtml Jesus said his church would be visible, that it would be one. Jesus does not lie. There we see the visible NT church - then - and it is still here today. It is still one - remains in communion as the quote says of the early church we just read about - who met in synod ... So I believe that those who venerated Poylcarp had already ...Sure blows that argument out of the water (that some like to make) that the Church didn't start until Constantine, doesn't it.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 26, 2014 10:44:28 GMT -5
Well there you have it folks. Mary was a perpetual virgin because the RCC said she was. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.* Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Mt. 16:18-19 Not everyone agrees with the RCC over this interpretation. and what does this verse have to do with Mary being a perpetual virgin? Peter was the least likely of all the disciples to become a leader of anything. He was a temperamental, prejudiced man who wasn't particularly fond of women in positions of authority. carm.org/is-peter-the-rock
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 26, 2014 10:46:16 GMT -5
Well there you have it folks. Mary was a perpetual virgin because the RCC said she was. If We were to live in the dark ages and do NOT agree with the RCC Mary perpetual virgin... Lots of us on this board will be roasted beef for sure. Thanks, God the RCC do not have that kind of power today! Now, they can only reasons with the listeners. We can voice our views, understanding on the subject without fear od having our tongues cut off.Yes, no kidding. I for one an glad the days have past where the RCC has no power to make kings, laws and kill people for heresy.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 26, 2014 10:55:40 GMT -5
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.* Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Mt. 16:18-19 Not everyone agrees with the RCC over this interpretation. and what does this verse have to do with Mary being a perpetual virgin? Peter was the least likely of all the disciples to become a leader of anything. He was a temperamental, prejudiced man who wasn't particularly fond of women in positions of authority. carm.org/is-peter-the-rock and what does this verse have to do with Mary being a perpetual virgin?The fact that it was always taught and passed down, and ... "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”Peter was the least likely of all the disciples to become a leader of anything.'God may not call the qualified, but He qualifies the called' ... scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 26, 2014 11:09:03 GMT -5
Not everyone agrees with the RCC over this interpretation. and what does this verse have to do with Mary being a perpetual virgin? Peter was the least likely of all the disciples to become a leader of anything. He was a temperamental, prejudiced man who wasn't particularly fond of women in positions of authority. carm.org/is-peter-the-rock and what does this verse have to do with Mary being a perpetual virgin?The fact that it was always taught and passed down, and ... "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”Peter was the least likely of all the disciples to become a leader of anything.'God may not call the qualified, but He qualifies the called' ... scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.htmlWell it certainly makes it understandable why there are no women of authority in your church. Peter is the leader of YOUR church, but that doesn't make it true that Jesus wanted him to be the leader of any church. Jesus wasn't establishing a church.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 26, 2014 11:12:51 GMT -5
Well it certainly makes it understandable why there are no women of authority in your church. Peter is the leader of YOUR church, but that doesn't make it true that Jesus wanted him to be the leader of any church. Jesus wasn't establishing a church. 1. I like it just the way Jesus established it. 2 & 3. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 26, 2014 11:14:15 GMT -5
Not everyone agrees with the RCC over this interpretation. and what does this verse have to do with Mary being a perpetual virgin? Peter was the least likely of all the disciples to become a leader of anything. He was a temperamental, prejudiced man who wasn't particularly fond of women in positions of authority. carm.org/is-peter-the-rock I agree, Peter was very timid person, blowing with the wind kind of person. Easy person to persuade by the crowd. Paul was a better overseer/Pope than Peter. Paul put God's truth/teaching before anyone, and was NOT afraid to confront people/Peter/Barnabas about their hypocrisy/false teachings either. That was one of the reasons, Jesus in Acts 9 He called and picked Paul, a chosen Vessel and a leader to bring the gospel to the Gentiles.For me, Peter comes across as the least intelligent of the bunch, the most ill tempered and prejudiced and not at all leader quality. He was the one that understood Jesus the least. He was also very much against Mary Magdalene and that showed in the early church by her getting labelled as a prostitute. It also makes it perfectly understandable why there are only males in the hierarchy of the RCC.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 26, 2014 11:16:25 GMT -5
Well it certainly makes it understandable why there are no women of authority in your church. Peter is the leader of YOUR church, but that doesn't make it true that Jesus wanted him to be the leader of any church. Jesus wasn't establishing a church. 1. I like it just the way Jesus established it. 2 & 3. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.I believe you 'liking it' would be a prerequisite for you being a member of the RCC wouldn't it. Why anyone would be is beyond my understanding, but I am glad you have found what works for you and gives you comfort.
|
|