Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: vladimir998
We knew scripture to be true 1500 years before your religious ancestors walked the earth. We TAUGHT YOU that scripture is true.

No where in the Pauline Epistles does it say, suggest or hint that the Apostle Peter was the head of the church, the head Apostle or any such thing...

The church was a mystery given to Paul to reveal to the believers...

Peter went thru a bit of a transition in doctrine...He started out preaching to Jews, under the law and God showed him in the book of Acts that salvation would then be extended to Gentiles as well...And Paul was given the commission to preach to the Gentiles and churches were created...Local assemblies...Often times in people's houses...

No doubt many still clung to Peter's initial message as can be witnessed by Paul's statement:

1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
1Co 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

There were divisions then as there are divisions now...The Catholic Church may somehow find it's way back to Peter's initial message...And since there is no pope mentioned in any scripture, and since Peter, as the head of the church was not alluded to in any of the Pauline Epistles, I would say it's pretty clear that the initial assembly of local churches were Protestant in nature...

The 'church' in the bible does not at all resemble the Catholic Church...

76 posted on 02/05/2006 2:56:25 PM PST by Iscool (Start your own revolution by voting for the candidates the media (and gov't) tells you cannot win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]


To: Iscool

Iscool,

You wrote: "No where in the Pauline Epistles does it say, suggest or hint that the Apostle Peter was the head of the church, the head Apostle or any such thing.."

Where in the Bible does it say that it has to be in the Bible explicitly to be true? Sola scriptura is NO WHERE in the Bible yet you believe it. That's a self-refuting proposition. I do not believe in sola scriptura and neither did Jews, Jesus or early Christians.

"The church was a mystery given to Paul to reveal to the believers..."

So the Church only existed since the baptism of Paul? Are you serious? So Matthew was lying when he wrote Matthew 16 AND 18?

"Peter went thru a bit of a transition in doctrine...He started out preaching to Jews, under the law and God showed him in the book of Acts that salvation would then be extended to Gentiles as well...And Paul was given the commission to preach to the Gentiles and churches were created...Local assemblies...Often times in people's houses..."

Peter was also an apostle to the Gentiles. He baptised Cornelius and his family -- not Paul. Protestants always forget that.

"No doubt many still clung to Peter's initial message as can be witnessed by Paul's statement:"

Peter's initial message is found in Acts 2. It is that message that Paul came to believe in LATER.

"There were divisions then as there are divisions now...The Catholic Church may somehow find it's way back to Peter's initial message..."

It never left it.

"And since there is no pope mentioned in any scripture,..."

Where is "Bible" mentioned in scripture? No where. Where is "Trinity" mentioned? No where. Ever realize that? No, apparently not.

"... and since Peter, as the head of the church was not alluded to in any of the Pauline Epistles,"

Oh, no? Did Paul not say he didn't seek to interfere with a foundation built by someone else? Romans 15:20. Ever wonder who that someone else was IN ROME?

"I would say it's pretty clear that the initial assembly of local churches were Protestant in nature..."

How could they be what didn't exist yet? And wouldn't exist for 1500 years? That's simply anachronism at its worst.

"The 'church' in the bible does not at all resemble the Catholic Church..."

Actually it does. Bishops, priests, and deacons. Do you have those? The Mass, the Eucharist and other sacraments. Got those? A Church that teaches authoritatively (even to the angels). Does your sect do that? Did you sect even exist a century ago? Three centuries ago? Five centuries ago?


77 posted on 02/05/2006 4:40:30 PM PST by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]

To: Iscool
The 'church' in the bible does not at all resemble the Catholic Church...

Not the modern catholic church anyway.

143 posted on 02/08/2006 5:24:54 PM PST by PleaseNoMore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson