JWs & Apostolic Succession

You’re going to agitate the Catholics that confuse their church’s teaching for Scripture.

Not likely. See #19. Church came before Scripture. No Church = No Scripture for protestants to get confused in with their own notions of Truth

They don’t accept orthodoxy that has been know for thousands of years. Instead relying upon their modern day (what was it 1800’s something..) ‘prophet’ to tell them that thousands of years of Christian doctrine were wrong.

They do this in face of the simplicity of the Gospel: You must be saved by Grace, through faith (Eph 2:8-9) and the fact that Jesus is clearly presented as both God, and man equally, and that His own statements claim that He is ONE with The Father.

The JWs are wrong, just like a rusted key won’t work in a lock.

-JS

Church came before Scripture

From the beginning the word of God always preceded the creations of God. God spoke, and the universe sprang into being. We agree on this, true? But no one knew this until God told us that this is how it happened, and this is what it means. Some he appointed to write these things down. It is evident from the teaching ministry of Christ that what God said was what was recorded in the law and the prophets, the Old Testament. That was not the entire Scripture, because all that God would do and say was not yet done and said. But when it was, God had someone write it down.

So to invert the sequence so that the church, God's most magnificent creation, precedes the divine word that created it is absurd. We emerged from the promises of God, the written promises of a coming Messiah and a new and better covenant that would finally do away with our sins forever. You can say the Church preceded the epistles of John, but you cannot say it preceded God's gift to us of His precious, written word. His word has been with us from our earliest beginnings, and nearly the entire time in written form, therefore most certainly before the Church.

My thoughts exactly!

Church came before Scripture. No Church = No Scripture for protestants to get confused in with their own notions of Truth

Oh? The Catholic church wrote the Old Testament?

I thought the JEWS gave us Scripture. At least that's what Paul says in Romans.

Or was the Catholic church wrong when it allegedly put that in the letter to the Romans?

Romans 3:1-2 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.

Additionally, truth is not the Catholic church. It is found outside of it as God is truth, and the Catholic church is not God.

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.

So then, does the Catholic church pick the new pope by lottery?

The new pope is usually picked after the old one dies.

That’s not how it happened in Acts. It was Peter who proposed picking a man to replace ANOTHER disciple, not even himself.

Nor is there a record of selecting someone to replace any of the other 10 apostles when they were martyred.

So the whole basis for the RCC’s claim for apostolic succession for picking a replacement for Peter is built on very thin ice.

So the whole basis for the RCC’s claim for apostolic succession for picking a replacement for Peter is built on very thin ice.

So the whole basis for the RCC’s claim(s) for ~~apostolic succession for picking a replacement for Peter~~ ANYTHING is built on very thin ice.

It is most certainly built on misinterpreting and ignoring plain Words in Scripture...

Well, yeah, that, too.

Funny how Catholics claim the RCC *wrote* Scripture, and yet have to cherry pick to find a verse here or there to support their theology.

You’d think that if they wrote the Bible, they’d have done a better job of laying the foundation to support their doctrine instead of them having to invent *sacred tradition* to fall back on.

Church came before Scripture.

Stop repeating this moronic statement. The OT was in existance thousands of years before Constantine. The apostles quoted from it, taught from it, believed it, preached from it ...

Only Roman Catholic arrogance assumes there was no Bible without the mother ship.

I am not going to take time to once again go thru one of your attempts to defend errors of Rome, suffice to say that the Holy Spirit simply does not teach what Rome extrapolates out of the Scriptural description of the NT church.

Searching the Scriptures we will not find the church with men led by apostles but are not, like those who claim to be their successors in Rome, for the true apostles were those who authority was unmistakable of God, '"in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God,..By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:6-7) Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. (2 Corinthians 12:12)

Yet nor do we see the NT church looking to Peter as the first of a line of exalted infallible popes in Rome reigning autocratically (unhindered power, needing no agreement from the Bishops in speaking "from the chair") over the church, nor even the necessity of promise of a perpetual assured infallible magisterium.

Instead, both writings and men of God were recognized and established as such, and Truth provided and preserved, and faith, long before a church of Rome would presume itself infallible and essential for this.

And truth was established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.

And Peter was the street level leader among brethren, and one of those who were manifest pillars, exercising a general pastoral role, yet who could err in leadership, and did not deliver the final verdict in Acts 15.

Meanwhile, nowhere were perpetual apostolic successors promised, unlike under the Law, and only one is seen, even though James was martyred, (Acts 12:1,2) and only one, as this was to maintain the number of the original apostles (Acts 1:15ff; Rv. 2:14)

In addition, the NT knew nothing of all revolving around the Lord's supper as the source and summit of their faith, and in the only place that it is manifestly mentioned in the life of the church then it is the church which is the focus as the body of Christ that needed to be recognized, by showing the Lord's death toward each other in their sharing of the communal meal. (1Cor. 11:17ff)

Thus the NT church knew nothing of NT pastors being distinctively titled "priests," as they did not have any unique sacrificial function, but their main function was to "preach the Word," (2Tim. 4:2) that the flock might be "nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine." (1Tim. 4:6)

It also knew nothing of a separate class of believers called “saints,” ” or the mention of the postmortem location of the saints being in purgatory versus with the Lord. (Lk. 24:43; 2Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23; 1Thes. 4:17)

And among other aberrations, based on Scripture it also knew nothing of the practice of praying to the departed, and the hyper exaltation of and devotion to Mary above that which is written; (1Cor. 4:6)

The Lord Jesus did indeed establish a church thru faith in the gospel, and by the same faith that one True church continues as the body of Christ, as it alone consists only of believers, and is visible in the variety we seen in the NT, and in which even the church of the Laodiceans was called a church, thus one might even call Rome a church.

For no one organized church is the one true church since it consist of both unregenerate and regenerate souls, and Rome in particular is mostly the latter (i was an active one), and is fundamentally different than the NT church, engaging in progressively deformation .

They simply assert that the words “rock” and “cornerstone” are synonymous, but that is simply not the case.

Wrong, as there is simply no real distinction made.

God is called “Rock”, and since Jesus is the “cornerstone”, it would follow that Jesus is God, but The Watchtower emphatically denies that.

My point as well. This attests to the Deity of Christ .

And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

That this refers to Peter as being the foundational rock of the church and which does not even have close to unanimous support of the "fathers," and even Catholic scholarship evidences to the contrary of and above all, in Scripture

In the text at issue, there is a play on the word "rock" by the Lord, in which the immovable "Rock" upon which Christ would build His church is the confession that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication it is Christ himself. The verse at issue, v.18, cannot be divorced from that which preceded it, in which the identity of Jesus Christ is the main subject. In the next verse (17) that is what Jesus refers to in telling blessed Peter that “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,” and in v. 18 that truth is what the “this rock” refers to, with a distinction being made between the person of Peter and this rock. And see here on the “underlying Aramaic” For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the ancients concur with.

In reality, while RCAs attempt to appeal Scripture as if it were the basis for doctrine, Scriptural substantiation is not the basis for RCs assurance of Rome being the one true and infallible church, else they would be evangelicals, but it is because they believe Rome is infallible.

But in response to those who invoke Scripture, there are arguments such as by Steve Hays (http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2008/06/04/some-questions-for-pete-enns/#comment-51994) on Matthew 16:18:

A direct appeal to Mt 16:18 greatly obscures the number of steps that have to be interpolated in order to get us from Peter to the papacy. Let’s jot down just a few of these intervening steps:

a) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to “Peter.”

b) The promise of Mt 16:18 has “exclusive” reference to Peter.

c) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to a Petrine “office.”
d) This office is “perpetual”

e) Peter resided in “Rome”

f) Peter was the “bishop” of Rome

g) Peter was the “first” bishop of Rome

h) There was only “one” bishop at a time

i) Peter was not a bishop “anywhere else.”

j) Peter “ordained” a successor

k) This ceremony “transferred” his official prerogatives to a successor.

l) The succession has remained “unbroken” up to the present day.
Lets go back and review each of these twelve separate steps:
(a) V18 may not even refer to Peter. “We can see that ‘Petros’ is not the “petra’ on which Jesus will build his church…In accord with 7:24, which Matthew quotes here, the ‘petra’ consists of Jesus’ teaching, i.e., the law of Christ. ‘This rock’ no longer poses the problem that ‘this’ is ill suits an address to Peter in which he is the rock. For that meaning the text would have read more naturally ‘on you.’ Instead, the demonstrative echoes 7:24; i.e., ‘this rock’ echoes ‘these my words.’

Only Matthew put the demonstrative with Jesus words, which the rock stood for in the following parable (7:24-27). His reusing it in 16:18 points away from Peter to those same words as the foundation of the church…Matthew’s Jesus will build only on the firm bedrock of his law (cf. 5:19-20; 28:19), not on the loose stone Peter.

Also, we no longer need to explain away the association of the church’s foundation with Christ rather than Peter in Mt 21:42,” R. Gundry, Matthew (Eerdmans 1994), 334.

(b) Is falsified by the power-sharing arrangement in Mt 18:17-18 & Jn 20:23.

(c) The conception of a Petrine office is borrowed from Roman bureaucratic categories (officium) and read back into this verse. The original promise is indexed to the person of Peter. There is no textual assertion or implication whatsoever to the effect that the promise is separable from the person of Peter.

(d) In 16:18, perpetuity is attributed to the Church, and not to a church office.

(e) There is some evidence that Peter paid a visit to Rome (cf. 1 Pet 5:13). There is some evidence that Peter also paid a visit to Corinth (cf. 1 Cor 1:12; 9:5).

(f) This commits a category mistake. An Apostle is not a bishop. Apostleship is a vocation, not an office, analogous to the prophetic calling. Or, if you prefer, it’s an extraordinary rather than ordinary office.

(g) The original Church of Rome was probably organized by Messianic Jews like Priscilla and Aquilla (cf. Acts 18:2; Rom 16:3). It wasn’t founded by Peter. Rather, it consisted of a number of house-churches (e.g. Rom 16; Hebrews) of Jewish or Gentile membership—or mixed company.

(h) NT polity was plural rather than monarchal. The Catholic claim is predicated on a strategic shift from a plurality of bishops (pastors/elders) presiding over a single (local) church—which was the NT model—to a single bishop presiding over a plurality of churches. And even after you go from (i) oligarchic to (ii) monarchal prelacy, you must then continue from monarchal prelacy to (iii) Roman primacy, from Roman primacy to (iv) papal primacy, and from papal primacy to (v) papal infallibility. So step (h) really breaks down into separate steps—none of which enjoys the slightest exegetical support.

(j) Peter also presided over the Diocese of Pontus-Bithynia (1 Pet 1:1). And according to tradition, Antioch was also a Petrine See (Apostolic Constitutions 7:46.).

(j)-(k) This suffers from at least three objections:

i) These assumptions are devoid of exegetical support. There is no internal warrant for the proposition that Peter ordained any successors.

ii) Even if he had, there is no exegetical evidence that the imposition of hands is identical with Holy Orders.

iii) Even if we went along with that identification, Popes are elected to papal office, they are not ordained to papal office. There is no separate or special sacrament of papal orders as over against priestly orders. If Peter ordained a candidate, that would just make him a pastor (or priest, if you prefer), not a Pope.

(l) This cannot be verified. What is more, events like the Great Schism falsify it in practice, if not in principle.

These are not petty objections. In order to get from Peter to the modern papacy you have to establish every exegetical and historical link in the chain. To my knowledge, I haven’t said anything here that a contemporary Catholic scholar or theologian would necessarily deny. They would simply fallback on a Newmanesque principle of dogmatic development to justify their position.

But other issues aside, this admits that there is no straight-line deduction from Mt 16:18 to the papacy. What we have is, at best, a chain of possible inferences. It only takes one broken link anywhere up or down the line to destroy the argument. Moreover, only the very first link has any apparent hook in Mt 16:18. Except for (v), all the rest depend on tradition and dogma. Their traditional support is thin and equivocal while the dogmatic appeal is self-serving.

The prerogatives ascribed to Peter in 16:19 (”binding and loosing” are likewise conferred on the Apostles generally in 18:18. The image of the “keys” (v19a) is used for Peter only, but this is a figure of speech—while the power signified by the keys was already unpacked by the “binding and loosing” language, so that no distinctively Petrine prerogative remains in the original promise. In other words, the “keys” do not refer to a separate prerogative that is distinctive to Peter. That confuses the metaphor with its literal referent.

My impression of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is that they do not even belong to the category of ‘Protestants’,

Then you are under the impression that RCs would be consistent and fair in their use of the term, seeing as they even deny EOs as being Catholic, and Prots as having churches.

Instead, we see thread after thread attacking Protestants, the definition of which is so wide you can drive a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian 747 thru it, simply based upon the common denominator that they are not Catholic/Orthodox, then RCs whining when she is exposed for what she is, and actually operates out of the same sola ecclesia model that cults as the" JW's" do.

For just as the atheistic definition of "Christian" which includes Hitler must be rejected as it is contrary to the Scriptural manifestation of what Christians were, that being where the term originates, (Acts 17:11) so also it is absurd to label groups that deny not only the core Truths that both Reformers and RCs held to, but also their core distinctives that defined them as being Protestant.

Of course, one should not be so ignorant as to recognize that "Answering Protestants" blog that has refuted time and again here, is simply used JWs as a means to attack conservative evangelicals, which are the greatest threat to liberal as well as conservative RCs dwelling together in the amalgamation called Roman Catholicism in all its diversity,

Merriam-Webster primarily defines Protestant in its capitalized form as:

a : any of a group of German princes and cities presenting a defense of freedom of conscience against an edict of the Diet of Spires in 1529 intended to suppress the Lutheran movement

b : a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth; broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church

While this can be used more broadly to even mean "one who makes or enters a protest," this and the definition "a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church" is an etymological fallacy, that of defining a word according to how it came to be used, not its actual original meaning. Etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and evolving changes in form and meaning. over time . Etymologies are not definitions. An etymological fallacy is a linguistic misconception, a genetic fallacy, that erroneously holds that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning.

WP states Protestantism "refers to the letter of protestation by Lutheran princes against the decision of the Diet of Speyer in 1529, which reaffirmed the edict of the Diet of Worms condemning the teachings of Martin Luther as heresy." [2 ]

http://www.ascensioncatholic.net/pastors-column/church-history-part-9-the-protestant-reformation-1517-1603-ad/ states,

The word Protestant is first used to describe German princes and free cities which have declared their dissent from the decision of the Diet of Speyer (1529) denouncing the Reformation.

http://history-world.org/reformation.htm writes that "Another great event in the Reformation occurred in 1529, when the word Protestant was first used formally. In Germany the Diet of Speyer decreed that changes of religion must stop and that the authority of the Catholic church be restored. The Lutheran minority in the Diet signed a protest against that decree, however. From this protest comes the modern term for the religious denominations of Protestantism."

It is in in this confession that we can see how the term "Protestant" came to describe them, as they stated,

To this Convention of a General Council, as also to Your I. M., we have in the due method and legal form before made our protestation and appeal in this greatest and gravest of matters.

...in friendship and love; concerning which appeal we here also make our solemn and public protest [protestamur (Latin) - conjugation of prōtestor (first-person plural present active indicative)].

Looking at these chief articles of faith (theses) we can best see "Protestant" defined as being Lutheran:[edit]

Article	Title	Description
I	God	Lutherans believe in the Triune God and reject other interpretations regarding the nature of God.
II	Original Sin	Lutherans believe that the nature of man is sinful, described as being without fear of God, without trust of God and with concupiscence. Sin is redeemed through Baptism the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
III	The Son of God	Lutherans believe in the incarnation, that is, the union of the fully human with the fully divine in the person of Jesus. Jesus Christ alone brings about the reconciliation of humanity with God.
IV	Justification By Faith	Man cannot be justified before God through our own abilities; we are wholly reliant on Jesus Christ for reconciliation with God. (This is often described as the one article by which the "Lutheran church stands or falls".)
V	The Office of Preaching	Lutherans believe that to ensure that the gospel of Jesus Christ is proclaimed throughout the world, Christ has established His office of the holy ministry.
VI	Of The New Obedience	Lutherans believe that good deeds of Christians are the fruits of faith and salvation, not a price paid for them.
VII	Of The Church	Lutherans believe that there is one holy catholic church, and it is found wherever the gospel is preached in its truth and purity and the sacraments are administered according to the gospel.
VIII	What The Church Is	Despite what hypocrisy may exist in the church (and among men), the Word and the Sacraments are always valid because they are instituted by Christ, no matter what the sins may be of the one who administers them.
IX	Of Baptism	Lutherans believe that Baptism is necessary, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God. Children are baptized as an offering to them of God's grace.
X	Of the Lord's Supper	Lutherans believe that Christ's body and blood is truly present in, with, and under the bread and wine of the sacrament and reject those that teach otherwise.
XI	Of Confession	Lutherans believe that private absolution should remain in the church, though a believer does not need to enumerate all of his sins as it is impossible for a man to enumerate all of the sins for which he should be forgiven.
XII	Of Repentance	Repentance comes in two parts: in contrition for sins committed according to the Law and through faith offered through the Gospel. A believer can never be free from sin, nor live outside of the grace of God.
XIII	Of the Use of the Sacraments	The Sacraments (Baptism and the Eucharist) are physical manifestations of God's Word and His commitment to us. The Sacraments are never just physical elements, but have God's word and promises bound to them.
XIV	Of Ecclesiastical Order	Lutherans allow only those who are "rightly called" to administer the Sacraments.
XV	Of Ecclesiastical Usages	Lutherans believe that church holidays, calendars and festivals are useful for religious observance, but that observance and ritual is not necessary for salvation. Human traditions (such as observances, fasts, distinctions in eating meats) that are taught as a way to "merit" grace work in opposition to the Gospel.
XVI	Of Civil Affairs	Secular governments and vocations are considered to be part of God's natural orders; Christians are free to serve in government and the military and to engage in the business and vocations of the world. Laws are to be followed unless they are commandments to sin.
XVII	Of Christ's Return to Judgment	Lutherans believe that Christ will return to raise the dead and judge the world; the godly will be given everlasting joy, and the ungodly will be "tormented without end". This article rejects notions of a millennial kingdom before the resurrection of the dead.
XVIII	Of Free Will	Lutherans believe that we have free will in the realm of "civil righteousness" (or "things subject to reason"), but that we do not have free will in "spiritual righteousness". In other words, we are free to choose and act in every regard except for the choice of salvation. Faith is not the work of men, but of the Holy Spirit.
XIX	Of the Cause of Sin	Lutherans believe that sin is caused not by God but by "the will of the wicked", turning away from God.
XX	Of Good Works	The Lutheran notion of justification by faith does not somehow condemn good works; faith causes them to do good works as a sign of our justification (or salvation), not a requirement for salvation.
XXI	Of the Worship of the Saints	Lutherans keep the saints, not as saviors or intercessors to God, but rather as examples and inspirations to our own faith and life.

Thus the most accurate definition would exclude almost all of those called Protestant today, including historically Pentecostal denominations which constitute the largest Protestant denominational families, and would be much closer to Rome.

However, just as a more basic definition of Christian, which Rome herself subscribes to, would be that of salvific essentials, so also within basic Reformed theology there are also salvific essentials, which would certainly exclude cults and those who preach formal justification based on man's own holiness, as per Rome and cults, and instead the heart if purified by faith, (Acts 15:7-9) a faith that will follow Christ, and which appropriates justification on His blood-expense and righteousness. (Acts 3:23-4:7ff) .

Yet even more basic would be the distinctive fundamental doctrinal basis for the Protestant protest, that of Scripture alone being the supreme transcendent standard for obedience and Truth, which it is abundantly evidenced to be, as as literally being the wholly Divinely inspired and thus assured authoritative Word of God.

This is in contrast to the church being supreme transcendent standard as basically being infallible, which "sola ecclesia" model both Rome and cults effectively operate out of. For Rome presumes that both Divine revelation and its meaning is only assuredly what she says it is, based upon the premise of her assured veracity, and thus dissent from her is held as rebellion to God.

Likewise in cults such as Mormonism, in which a person or office is formally or effectively held as the supreme infallible authority.

It is due to this fundamental basis that those who hold most strongly to Scripture being supreme as literally being the assured authoritative Word of God that evangelicals have been the most unified in core beliefs and historically have most strongly contended for core truths they hold with Catholics, and against cults which deny them, as well as against her traditions of men which Rome holds, and those of cults.

No where does the Bible call Peter the primary apostle as does the RCC. You are attempting to read something into the text that isn't there. There are at least two other passages that show Peter's designted leadership if one puts aside the Gentile mind and considers what the LORD Jesus taught the Jewish apostles. I think one has to be willfully blind and obstinate to deny the truth that Jesus chose Peter to be the leader.

And there are an equal number of passages that show Peter was not the Primary Apostle as designated by the RCC.

Did Peter have a leadership role? Yes he did. That is obvious from the text. But was he the primary one? No.

Part of this problem is that the RCC has focused exclusively on this account in Matthew and has ignored the other two accounts in Mark and Luke. All three of the accounts of the exchange include the questions Jesus asked regarding who did the people say He was. All three have Peter saying that He was the Christ, the Christ of God or the Son of the Living God.

So what is the primary focus of these three texts? That Christ is the Son of the Living God. That's the message. That's the foundation.

The instructions given to Peter by Christ are secondary to the main point....that the church is built upon Christ. It is the key to the kingdom.

How do you enter the kingdom of God?

Is it on the apostles? No.

Is it on profession of faith in Christ? Yes. It's the key!

Peter was to present to Gospel to the Jews first, which we see he did faithfully in the opening chapters of Acts. Paul was to present to the Gentiles...which he did.

Now, we are ALL responsible for sharing the Gospel as moved by the Holy Spirit.

1. 15So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 16He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 17He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 18Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. 19This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

the sheep were the jewish people.

2. And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) 16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. 17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. 21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. 23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. 26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

And at the Council of Jerusalem it was the advice of James that they followed...not Peter's. Acts 15:1-23

Peter had to be corrected by Paul. Gal 2:11-14

Jesus chose John to take care of Mary....not Peter.

Gal 2:9 James, Peter and John....notice that James is listed first.

2 Peter 3:14, Peter calls Paul beloved brother.

Gal 1:18 Paul visits Peter to become acquainted with him. The greek word used for acquainted does not indicate anything other than just what it was...a getting acquainted meeting.

Peter would not allow anyone to bow down to him unlike the more recent and current popes...no kissing rings and such.

Peter always, always pointed everything he did to Christ. It was never reflected back on him.

Faith in Christ always was, is, and always will be the key to entering Heaven.

I classify them as seekers of Truth- like -Nancy -Pelosi. Ouch!

You mean Catholic Pelosi. Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington has declared his opposition to using canon 915 this way, stating, "was never intended to be used this way", that is, to bring politicians to heel." "Wuerl: Why I Won't Deny Pelosi Communio n".

Church came before Scripture. No Church = No Scripture for protestants to get confused in with their own notions of Truth

That is absurd, and seems to be an example of the kind of starry-eyed blind devotion to Rome that is only sees her and shuns objective examination that refutes such nonsense.

For the readily apparent fact is that the church itself established upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) having its foundation in the Jewish Scriptures, or else it would not have been of the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, etc.

And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. (Romans 11:17-18)

And thus the abundant referencing to the Hebrews Scriptures, which were recognized and established as being so without an assuredly infallible magisterium, which Rome imagines was essential for this, and understanding their meaning.

And thus contrary to your statement, the fact is without its foundation in the Hebrews Scriptures then there would be no no NT church, and thus no NT. No Scripture = No Church

Moreover, Scripture was not the work of the magisterium, the church of Rome is simply fundamentally in contrast to that of the NT whose members penned it,

You’re going to agitate the Catholics that confuse their church’s teaching for Scripture.

Not likely. See #19. Church came before Scripture.

The reasoning behind this also absurd, as it presumes the instrument, discerners and stewards of Holy Writ must be the correct interpreters of it, which logic as shown you before, means 1st c. souls should have submitted to those who sat in the seat of Moses in their interpretation of who Christ was.

Stop repeating this moronic statement. The OT was in existance thousands of years before Constantine. The apostles quoted from it, taught from it, believed it, preached from it ... Only Roman Catholic arrogance assumes there was no Bible without the mother ship. - dartuser

It took the Jews thousands of years (and after the advent of Christianity) to decide on the Tanakh (their canon) and, even then, “Hellenistic” Jews preferred the Septuagint! The only reason that we know which books comprise the Testaments is that the Church has informed us. If the Church, as Her own entity, is not infallible on such doctrine, then the Bible cannot be trusted.

The only reason that we know which books comprise the Testaments is that the Church has informed us.

And you have it exactly backwards ... the church didn't determine the canon, God did, by inspiring the writing. The only job left was to recognize which books were inspired ... and the church did just fine long before Rome came along. Peter recognized Paul's writings were scripture, he didn't need some church council to tell him Ephesians was inspired.

The early church used Pauls writings, preached them, read them, studied them ... long before the 300+ AD councils ... by the time Rome recognized the canon they could only agree with all the other churches ... so it was the equivalent of shouting "Me too!"

They came late to the party but continue to claim they were the first ones to arrive.

It is well known that many documents containing the lists of successors have been lost over time, but that does not mean there weren’t any, much less that it wasn’t believed. In fact, we have hardly any records of the ordination history of bishops beyond Cardinal Scipione Rebiba, but that hardly means the doctrine was invented then. The early Christians were unanimous on apostolic succession and used it as a means of argument when disputes arose.

It means that Scripture, tradition and history (and "unanimous') means whatever Rome says they do. As Rome presumes that since God is the author of both her doctrine and Scripture, then there simply can be no conflict since she autocratically defines what a contradiction is.

Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church... it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church. - (Providentissimus Deus; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)

Thus forbidding bowing down to graven images and attributing uniquely Divine attributes to created beings, such as the ability to hear from heaven virtually infinite amounts of mental prayer from earth, which only God is shown able to do, and there is not a single prayer among the approx 200 in Scripture to anyone else in Heaven except the Lord, simply cannot be held to contradict such a thing as kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, including as having Divine powers and glory, and making offerings and beseeching such for Heavenly help, directly accessed by mental prayer.

Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

And thus even though church "fathers" do contradict both each other and Rome , she either must define them as not, or define "unanimous" as being non-unanimous

Thus when faced with challenges, no less than Bellarmine argues,

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine... may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour." — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228. .

Thus,

The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.

For history is seen as showing the deviations of Rome from it, which is why Newman had to work at the theory of the Development of Doctrine due to lack of actual unanimous consent ” of the fathers.

Thus Webster states,

At first, this clear lack of patristic consensus led Rome to embrace a new theory in the late nineteenth century to explain its teachings — the theory initiated by John Henry Newman known as the development of doctrine. In light of the historical reality, Newman had come to the conclusion that the Vincentian principle of unanimous consent was unworkable, because, for all practical purposes, it was nonexistent. To quote Newman:

It does not seem possible, then, to avoid the conclusion that, whatever be the proper key for harmonizing the records and documents of the early and later Church, and true as the dictum of Vincentius must be considered in the abstract, and possible as its application might be in his own age, when he might almost ask the primitive centuries for their testimony, it is hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory result. The solution it offers is as difficult as the original problem. — John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., reprinted 1927), p. 27.

Like Orthodox:

Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith [context] and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development."

Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the Christian Faith as the Church moved into new circumstances and acquired other needs....

On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

Rome's traditions such as the Assumption (never recorded or prophesied), prayer to departed saints (not one example in all Scripture, or Divine hearing ability shown by the latter), NT pastors distinctively titled priests (never done so), assured infallibility (never seen or necessary), etc. never made it into Scripture, and the veracity of them do not rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but upon her own self-proclaimed assured veracity.

In addition, the NT knew nothing of all revolving around the Lord's supper as the source and summit of their faith, and in the only place that it is manifestly mentioned in the life of the church then it is the church which is the focus as the body of Christ that needed to be recognized, by showing the Lord's death toward each other in their sharing of the communal meal. (1Cor. 11:17 ff)

Nor do we see the NT church looking to Peter as the first of a line of exalted infallible popes in Rome reigning autocratically (unhindered power, needing no agreement from the Bishops in speaking "from the chair") over the church, nor even the necessity of promise of a perpetual assured infallible magisterium.

Instead, both writings and men of God were recognized and established as such, and Truth provided and preserved, and faith, long before a church of Rome would presume itself infallible and essential for this.

And truth was established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.

And Peter was the street level leader among brethren, and one of those who were manifest pillars, exercising a general pastoral role, yet who could err in leadership, and did not deliver the final verdict in Acts 15.

Meanwhile, nowhere were perpetual apostolic successors promised, unlike under the Law, and only one is seen, even though James was martyred, (Acts 12:1,2) and only one, as this was to maintain the number of the original apostles (Acts 1:15ff; Rv. 2:14)

For even Catholic research provides evidence against the idea of the early papacy:

The Catholic historian Paul Johnson (author of over 40 books and a conservative popular historian), writes in his 1976 work “History of Christianity:”

Eusebius [whose history can be dubious] presents the lists as evidence that orthodoxy had a continuous tradition from the earliest times in all the great Episcopal sees and that all the heretical movements were subsequent aberrations from the mainline of Christianity.

Looking behind the lists, however, a different picture emerges. In Edessa, on the edge of the Syrian desert, the proofs of the early establishment of Christianity were forgeries, almost certainly manufactured under Bishop Kune, the first orthodox Bishop, and actually a contemporary of Eusebius...

Orthodoxy was not established [In Egypt] until the time of Bishop Demetrius, 189-231, who set up a number of other sees and manufactured a genealogical tree for his own bishopric of Alexandria, which traces the foundation through ten mythical predecessors back to Mark, and so to Peter and Jesus...

Even in Antioch, where both Peter and Paul had been active, there seems to have been confusion until the end of the second century. Antioch completely lost their list...When Eusebius’s chief source for his Episcopal lists, Julius Africanus, tried to compile one for Antioch, he found only six names to cover the same period of time as twelve in Rome and ten in Alexandria.

Catholic theologian and Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study that “the episcopate [development of bishops] is a the fruit of a post New Testament development,” and cannot concur with those (interacting with Jones) who see little reason to doubt the notion that there was a single bishop in Rome through the middle of the second century:

Hence I stand with the majority of scholars who agree that one does not find evidence in the New Testament to support the theory that the apostles or their coworkers left [just] one person as “bishop” in charge of each local church...

“...the evidence both from the New Testament and from such writings as I Clement, the Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians and The Shepherd of Hennas favors the view that initially the presbyters in each church, as a college, possessed all the powers needed for effective ministry. This would mean that the apostles handed on what was transmissible of their mandate as an undifferentiated whole, in which the powers that would eventually be seen as episcopal were not yet distinguished from the rest. Hence, the development of the episcopate would have meant the differentiation of ministerial powers that had previously existed in an undifferentiated state and the consequent reservation to the bishop of certain of the powers previously held collegially by the presbyters. — Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 221,22,24

Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-4 :

“New Testament scholars agree..., The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative.

That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.”

“....that does not mean that the figure and the commission of the Peter of the New Testament did not encompass the possibility, if it is projected into a Church enduring for centuries and concerned in some way to to secure its ties to its apostolic origins and to Jesus himself.

If we ask in addition whether the primitive church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer.” (page 1-2)

• American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar Raymond Brown (twice appointed to Pontifical Biblical Commission):

“The claims of various sees to descend from particular members of the Twelve are highly dubious. It is interesting that the most serious of these is the claim of the bishops of Rome to descend from Peter, the one member of the Twelve who was almost a missionary apostle in the Pauline sense – a confirmation of our contention that whatever succession there was from apostleship to episcopate, it was primarily in reference to the Puauline tyupe of apostleship, not that of the Twelve.” (“Priest and Bishop, Biblical Reflections,” Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, 1970, pg 72.)

• Raymond Brown [being criticized here], in “Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections,” could not prove on historical grounds, he said, that Christ instituted the priesthood or episcopacy as such; that those who presided at the Eucharist were really priests; that a separate priesthood began with Christ; that the early Christians looked upon the Eucharist as a sacrifice; that presbyter-bishops are traceable in any way to the Apostles; that Peter in his lifetime would be looked upon as the Bishop of Rome; that bishops were successors of the Apostles, even though Vatican II made the same claim.. (from, "A Wayward Turn in Biblical Theory" by Msr. George A. Kelly can be read on the internet at http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/Jan-Feb00/Article5.html)

M o r e .

You are correct.

You were NOT supposed to notice!