Posted on 01/06/2013 3:56:49 PM PST by NYer
I didn’t say that Peter had HIGHRR authority. I said Christ passed on HIS authority to Peter and the apostles when he ascended into heaven.
He picked his successors, in other words.
But the Bible doesn't.
2. Salutations, from Babylon St. Peter’s First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads: “The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark” (5:13). Babylon must here be identified with the Roman capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins, or New Babylon (Seleucia) on the Tigris, or the Egyptian Babylon near Memphis, or Jerusalem cannot be meant, the reference must be to Rome, the only city which is called Babylon elsewhere in ancient Christian literature (Revelation 17:5; 18:10; “Oracula Sibyl.”, V, verses 143 and 159, ed. Geffcken, Leipzig, 1902, 111).
Well, isn't that interesting now. Here we have it on Catholic authority that Babylon in Scripture DOES after all, mean Rome.
I'll keep that in mind next time I read the book of Revelation.
Outside of the questionable interpretation of this guy that Babylon = Rome, therefore Peter was in Rome, there is not one scrap of evidence from Scripture that Peter was ever there.
It's all the *church fathers*, historical record of which there is no way of verifying any of it, and *tradition*.
Circumstantial evidence outside of Scripture is simply circumstantial evidence and proves nothing.
I do want to thank you for providing links to that which you want people to read instead of wasting bandwidth posting the WHOLE thing.
I thought the authority of Christianity was centered on Jesus.
I don’t believe I can solve the reformation issues on apolitical forum. But, for heaven’s sake, I you Catholics believe in the authority of scripture, why do you vote for a man and a party that believes in infanticide, homosexual marriage, booing and voting against God at their political convention. We. of orthodox and historical faith, must join politically to eradicate this abomination we call the Democratic Party!
Even the Catholic Church admits they can’t prove that.
As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses>/b> more or less well-founded.
Uncertainty and hypotheses are not the basis that I am relying on for my salvation and beliefs.
Source? My source is in the links I posted up at the top.
If Peter and the other Apostles, and THEIR disciples hadn't done the work to spread the words and story of Jesus, there wouldn't even have been a Church. They knew it wasn't about them, but about Jesus's Words and Teachings, and they did a good job getting them out to the world.
Jesus knew what He was doing when He chose them.
Christ passed on His authority? Really? I think not.
And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever--the Spirit of Truth. The world cannot accept Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him, for He lives with you and will be in you. John 14:16,17
Acts 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
It wasn’t Peter Christ promised us.
This was a quote from your source. I took it directly from this thread post and checked it with the site listed.
“As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded.
Those aren’t my words. They are the words of the source article. “uncertain” and “hypotheses” is not what I will base my beliefs on. Catholics obviously choose otherwise.
Matthew 28:18-20 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
All authority is Christ's by His own words. Therefore, the RCC cannot legitimately claim to have any because it is not Jesus.
Matthew 20:25-28 25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
1 Peter 5:1-3 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.
If Peter were indeed the first pope and thought that he had that kind of authority over the others, he most certainly would not have appealed to the others as a fellow elder for their cooperation, it could have just appealed to his authority that the RCC claims Jesus gave him and ordered them to do it.
There is nothing in Scripture, either in the book of Acts or Paul's writings that acknowledges Peter's authority, nor is there anything in Peter's writings that make that claim for himself.
All the claim for the authority that Peter allegedly has is spurious and poorly supported from history.
Isaiah 1:13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. 14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. 15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.
Amos 5:21 I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not take delight in your solemn assemblies
And lest you think that’s all Old Testament stuff and not relevant after Christ. Paul was still keeping the old feasts but no where is mentioned of any new.
Acts 18:21 But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.
Jesus kept all of the old feast days commanded by God and taught the apostles to do the same. Then He sent them into the world with this command.
Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Now the those who celebrate other “feast days” need to show from scripture where Jesus instituted other feast days that are observed today or consider that God’s disdain for them still stands. You haven’t yet shown from scripture where there were any other feast days instituted.
let's see now...the same religion that codified, interpreted, salvaged, catalogued, preserved, hand copied, etc etc...the scriptures just casually threw in a bunch of fairy tales to confuse the masses....Hm-m-m-m-m does that really sound logical to you....and while this was all going on, where was your "denomination"????? Oh that's right, wouldn't even be thought up for 1,600 or so years!!
Jesus said that Peter was *petros*(masculine) and that on this *petra*(feminine) He would build His church.
Greek: 4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros ("small stone") then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra ("cliff, boulder," Abbott-Smith).
"4074 (Pétros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (pétra) is a cliff" (TDNT, 3, 100). "4074 (Pétros) always means a stone . . . such as a man may throw, . . . versus 4073 (pétra), a projecting rock, cliff" (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
4073 pétra (a feminine noun) – "a mass of connected rock," which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is "a detached stone or boulder" (A-S). 4073 (pétra) is a "solid or native rock, rising up through the earth" (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.
4073 (petra) is "a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw" (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
It's also a strange way to word the sentence that He would call Peter a rock and say that on this I will build my church instead of *on you* as would be grammatically correct in talking to a person.
There is no support from the original Greek for the idea that Jesus meant Peter to be that which He was going to build His church on.
Jesus the Living Christ left for us the Councilor.
IE Holy Spirit
To say that Christ gave His authority to a man, is just plain .... wrong.
To whom did Christ give the Keys to the Kingdom? It’s in Scripture?
GREAT!!!! now I won't have to go to Mass every week, in fact we don't need churches at all....everyone just get a bible and kind of "do your own thing"....oh wait, that's what protestants do now...
So since the Catholic Church so meticulously assembled the scripture could you show us where in scripture they put the teaching of the assumption of Mary?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.