Posted on 06/11/2007 3:29:03 AM PDT by markomalley
A key to remember is that Christ revealed many things directly Himself to Paul so it’s not surprising to see that he, thru the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, revealed the blessings of the Lord Supper to the Gentiles through Paul as well in his teachings and epistle.
That being said, there is no doubt the Lord’s Supper was clearly spread by the Apostles as well to the Jews so they were able to celebrate the Lord’s Supper as well.
In this case, “tradition” and scripture are one in the same, which is exactly what I believe they must be to be doctrinally sound. In other words, the doctrines of salvation are all present in scripture and were passed on as tradition orally as well so to put it into algebra A (scripture) = B (oral tradition). Not A >/= B or B >/= A.
Please understand I’m not saying all doctrinal tradition is explicitly jumping off the pages of scripture by any means. The Holy Trinity and other doctrines are present in underlying ways that were revealed thru the men the Holy Spirit chose to reveal it thru. The point is that it was able to be shown clearly in scripture once it was unleashed as “tradition”. For me that’s the measuring stick.
Anyhew, this is a topic of, for a lack of better terms, biblical proportions and one I’m not interested in diving too deep into because it’s an exercise in futility. Thanks for letting me share my thoughts...
May you have a blessed evening!
In Christ.
PM
Greetings to both of you.
I saw Flo’s post after I stumbled through trying to state my thoughts in my answer to Salvation a few posts above. I too concure that Flo’s answer was brilliant and summed up my blathering into a much better format. That’s essentially my viewpoint as well...which I think many RCC’r’s would be surprised to see from us wild and crazy “Proddies” ;-)
Blessings to both of you!
In Christ
Galatians 1:11-19
11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
13 For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. 14 And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Contacts at Jerusalem
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.
From the Scripture we know that (1) Paul received the Gospel by direct revelation from Jesus; (2) Paul traveled from Damascus to Arabia and back; (3) Paul went to Jerusalem and met with Peter and James the first time three years after his conversion and the commencement of his ministry.
From Acts chapters 9, 22, and 26, we know that Paul began to preach the Gospel immediately. This implies that Jesus gave him full knowledge of His Gospel, if not immediately upon conversion, shortly thereafter.
Other points of interest.
Paul specifically identifies James as the brother of Jesus.
Paul spread the Gospel as a free agent. Only after three years did he bother to confer with the other Apostles, and only with two of them. He felt no compunction, need or motivation to "compare notes". What then of a centrally managed, hierarchical organization?
While Paul visited with Peter and James in Jerusalem, he did not mention anything about them (specifically Peter) having authority over him. And he stayed just 15 days. In fact, he wrote the Galatian passage to demonstrate the authenticity and authority of his Gospel apart from the other Apostles, and above those who were spreading a false gospel. Clearly he acknowledged the authority he received from Jesus above any other human, including the other apostles. Where's Paul's acknowledgment of the authority of a man as head of the Lord's Church?
Flo, your position sounds (no offense) basically like the Catholic position. Why should I be offended? I may have many theological disagreements with Catholicism, but Catholics are my brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ, and I cannot be offended when being told I share a position with a fellow believer. I think I should be praising God instead!!
I hope the following isn't too far off topic, but in these days of anonymous Internet postings, it’s easy to forget how our words can affect others. I just happened to stumble upon this excerpt from a sermon of John Wesley’s. As we scramble through these theological battlegrounds, maybe we can all learn something. (By the way, ol' John Wesley thought tradition was pretty important...just NOT as important as Scripture...okay, I'll stop now.. :)
Are you persuaded that you see more clearly than me? It is not unlikely that you may. Then treat me as you would desire to be treated yourself upon a change of circumstances. Point out to me a better way than I have yet known. Show me it is so, by plain proof of Scripture. And if I linger in the path I have accustomed to tread, and am therefore unwilling to leave it, labour with me a little; take me by the hand, and lead me as I am able to bear. But be not displeased if I entreat you not to beat me down in order to quicken my pace: I can go but feebly and slowly at best; then, I should not be able to go at all. May I not request of you, further, not to give me hard names in order to bring me into the right way. Suppose I were ever so much in the wrong, I doubt this would not set me right. Rather, it would make me run so much the farther from you, and so get more and more out of the way.
For God’s sake, if it be possible to avoid it, let us not provoke one another to wrath. Let us not kindle in each other this fire of hell; much less blow it up into a flame. If we could discern truth by that dreadful light, would it not be a loss rather than gain? For, how far is love, even with many wrong opinions, to be preferred before truth itself without love! We may die without the knowledge of many truths, and yet be carried into Abraham’s bosom. But if we die without love, what will knowledge avail? Just as much as it avails the devil and his angels!
The God of love forbid that we should ever make the trial. May he prepare us for the knowledge of all truth, by filling our hearts with all his love, and with all joy and peace in believing!
Blessings to you all
You should speak up more often!
John 4:19-26 The Samaritan Woman
“Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”
Jesus declared, “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”
The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”
Then Jesus declared, “I who speak to you am he.”
I look forward to your future postings. :)
To address a former claim, there is no information to the effect that Paul was taught for three years by Christ. He went to Arabia and then back to Damascus for three years and then went to visit Peter. Not Peter to visit him.
Note, too, that after his conversion, he did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, implying that he would do so in the future. Since his next named contact is Peter, it seems likely that he went to confer with Peter.
Another note:
Mark 6:2-3 When the sabbath came he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished. They said, “Where did this man get all this? What kind of wisdom has been given him? What mighty deeds are wrought by his hands!
Is he not the carpenter, 3 the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.
Son of Mary: contrary to Jewish custom, which calls a man the son of his father, this expression may reflect Mark’s own faith that God is the Father of Jesus (Mark 1:1, 11; 8:38; 13:32; 14:36). The brother of James . . . Simon: in Semitic usage, the terms “brother,” “sister” are applied not only to children of the same parents, but to nephews, nieces, cousins, half-brothers, and half-sisters; cf Genesis 14:16; 29:15; Lev 10:4. While one cannot suppose that the meaning of a Greek word should be sought in the first place from Semitic usage, the Septuagint often translates the Hebrew ah by the Greek word adelphos, “brother,” as in the cited passages...
Scripturally, one has more than sufficient evidence that Peter, not Paul, was ascendent.
Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).
Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.
Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water.
Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.
Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.
Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.
Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus’ tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.
Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ’s representative on earth.
Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus’ teachings.
Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.
Mark 10:28 - here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.
Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus’ curse on the fig tree.
Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.
Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.
Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.
Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the “fisher of men.”
Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples. Jesus also singles Peter out and judges his conduct vis-à-vis the conduct of the woman who anointed Him.
Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.
Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.
Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.
Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter’s formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.
Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.
Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.
Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.
John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.
John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.
John 13:36; 21:18 - Jesus predicts Peter’s death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred.
John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the “barque of Peter”) is a metaphor for the Church.
John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.
John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus “more than these,” which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.
John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Sheep means all people, even the apostles.
Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord’s ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.
Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn’t it need one to Peter? Of course.
Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.
Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.
Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.
Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.
Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 - Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ.
Acts 5:3 - Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.
Acts 5:15 - Peter’s shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.
Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.
Acts 8:20-23 - Peter casts judgment on Simon’s quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.
Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and works the healing of Aeneas.
Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.
Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.
Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).
Acts 12:5 - this verse implies that the “whole Church” offered “earnest prayers” for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.
Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.
Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church’s first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.
Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter’s definitive teaching.
Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter’s definitive teaching. “Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited...”
Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn’t want to build on “another man’s foundation” referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.
1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.
1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles. Christ appeared “to Cephas, then to the twelve.”
Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ’s Revelation to Paul.
1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by “exhorting” all the other bishops and elders of the Church.
1 Peter 5:13 - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from “Babylon” which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that “Babylon” meant Rome. Rome was the “great city” of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.
2 Peter 1:14 - Peter writes about Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s death, embracing the eventual martyrdom that he would suffer.
2 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul’s letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock.
Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:44 - yet Peter, as the first, humbled himself to be the last and servant of all servants.
1 Corinthians 1:10-17
I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas[a][Peter]”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
Certainly, he is admonishing the Corinthians to stop their divisions and who they follow (a la Reformation practice I’d say), but if you read further, even Paul singles out Cephas:
1 Cor 9
1
1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?
2
Although I may not be an apostle for others, certainly I am for you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3
My defense against those who would pass judgment on me 2 is this.
4
3 Do we not have the right to eat and drink?
5
Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
The purpose of my previous post was to show how Peter was singled out by Jesus and that the authority conferred upon him was recognized by the others.
ping to above post
You do not address the central point though. We are baptized in Christ, not in Cephas or Paul. Which is more important, that we are Catholic or that we are Christian?
John Paul II, “Crossing the Threshold of Hope”
To allay to some degree your fears, which seem to arise from a profound faith, I would suggest a reading of Saint Augustine, who often repeated: “Vobis sum episcopus, vobiscum christianus” (”I am a bishop for you, I am a Christian with you”; cf., for example, Sermon 340.1: J. P. Migne, ed., Patrologia Latina 38.1483). On further reflection, christianus has far greater significance than episcopus, even if the subject is the Bishop of Rome.
I think it's fair to say that to claim to be either one without claiming to be the other makes no sense. To be Catholic is to espouse the universal (in Latin 'catholicam') Christian Faith, as handed down from the Apostles.
If we were to be "perfectly united in mind and thought" as Christians, who would lead us? Who would have the authority to make decisions in the Church?
The Biblical model for the new Davidic Kingdom under the reign of Christ the King is the same as that of the old Davidic Kingdom. Authority is exerted through the office of an administrator, as evidenced in Isaiah 22 (incidentally, the administrator is also a keybearer, and it is said of him "what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open," -- a parallel to Matthew 16). Overwhelmingly, the evidence of that officeholder among the Apostles is Peter, as Mark has already shown.
The original point was that of authority within the Church - the role of Vicar of Christ and who deferred to whom when the decisions are made. This is a separate issue from who we are baptized in.
Of course, we are baptized in Christ. The whole deal with the Corinthians was that they were getting to the point where they were becoming fixated upon one of the many Apostles, and beginning to replace Christ with one of them in terms of religious belief.
One might equate this with “Lutheranism”, “Calvinism” etc.
These are two separate issues and shouldn’t be confused.
Well put.
The same folks who claim that they are infallibly led by the Holy Spirit because they KNOW it, are also invariably the same ones that claim that the Catholic Church isn’t led by the Holy Spirit because they KNOW it.
I wanted to add to it, that while Transsubstantiation is a late scholastic doctrine, rather than purely patristic doctrine (it is not recognized by the Orthodox, who, of course, believe in the Real Presence), it would be inciorrect to say that the Transsubstantiation completely lacks scriptural support. It is found in the Road to Emmaus episode, where Christ is physically present among the disciples, yet they do not recognized Him other than in the bread. This episode provides an instance where the real presence of Christ is not what is seen, but rather an unnamed pilgrim and a piece of bread is seen:
14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened. 15 And it came to pass, that while they talked and reasoned with themselves, Jesus himself also drawing near, went with them. 16 But their eyes were held, that they should not know him.[...]
30 And it came to pass, whilst he was at table with them, he took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to them. 31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him: and he vanished out of their sight. 32 And they said one to the other: Was not our heart burning within us, whilst he spoke in this way, and opened to us the scriptures? 33 And rising up, the same hour, they went back to Jerusalem: and they found the eleven gathered together, and those that were staying with them, 34 Saying: The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. 35 And they told what things were done in the way; and how they knew him in the breaking of the bread.
(Luke 24)
I am aware of different interpretations of the episode, but only the interpretation where Christ purposely reveals His real presence in the bread satisfies.
You guys have built a religion on an Apostle, instead of Jesus Christ...
But as you have pointed out in the above verse, Paul is the Apostle for the Gentile church of which I am a member...And he goes on to say that we, the church, are his (Paul's) Apostleship in the Lord...
2Co 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
You see that??? Paul espoused the church to the bridegroom...NOT Peter...But Paul...
2Co 11:5 For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.
Peter had nothing on Paul...
2Co 11:10 As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia.
2Co 11:12 But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.
Your religion teaches that Paul is NOT the choesen Apostle to the church so I'd say this verse applies to your religion...
2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
Paul wouldn't have stood for your pope, your vicar of Christ taking over the Gentile church for nothing...
2Co 11:28 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.
If there is a head Apostle to the (Gentile) church, it obviously and clearly is Paul, NOT Peter...
2Co 11:31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed forevermore, knoweth that I lie not.
God knows Paul is telling the truth...How come you don't???
2Co 12:1 It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
2Co 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such a one caught up to the third heaven.
Paul was caught up to the third heaven...In the presence of God...
2Co 12:3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)
2Co 12:4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
Paul learned things from God that he couldn't tell anyone...And no, the Catholic religion is not an exception...
2Co 12:5 Of such a one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.
2Co 12:6 For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me.
And these are some of the verses that make it crystal clear that Paul was speaking of himself...
How could anyone possibly think the Apostle Peter was the pope of the Gentile church...
The bible clears up all heresies...
Peter didn’t go through his journeys to finish up in Rome in order to only lead the Jewish Christian Church. There weren’t a whole lot of Jews in Rome anyway, certainly not enough who would convert in order to establish a Church based only on them.
My list includes Scripture drawn from throughout the New Testament including all the Gospels and including the words and deeds of Jesus Christ. Your list is exclusively from Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians who were guilty then of what Luther, Zwingli, Calvin et al were guilty of 1500 years later. He was railing against their practices, not against the newly formed Church.
You say that Paul is the Apostle for the Gentile Church of which you are a member. Does that mean that you are guilty of what they were?
11:2 Paul was the bishop in charge of an area. Peter was his superior.
11:4-5 For if someone comes and preaches another Jesus 5 than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it well enough.
5
6 For I think that I am not in any way inferior to these “superapostles.” Paul was speaking of these intruders who were teaching other than the true Gospel.
11:8-15 8
I plundered other churches by accepting from them in order to minister to you.
9
And when I was with you and in need, I did not burden anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied my needs. So I refrained and will refrain from burdening you in any way.
10
By the truth of Christ in me, this boast of mine shall not be silenced in the regions of Achaia.
11
9 And why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do!
12
And what I do I will continue to do, in order to end this pretext of those who seek a pretext for being regarded as we are in the mission of which they boast.
13
10 For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, who masquerade as apostles of Christ.
14
And no wonder, for even Satan masquerades as an angel of light.
15
So it is not strange that his ministers also masquerade as ministers of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.
Paul says that those who spread false Gospels are ministers of Satan. He also is boasting of what he was able to do and with the help of the Macedonians. It has nothing to do with Church hierarchy.
Paul is telling the truth. Our contention is that he is telling the truth about what he’s doing and why he’s doing it. The Gospels and the whole New Testament make clear the relative positions of Peter and Paul. Not two epistles of admonishment to a people who are falling under the spell of false teachings.
Think God was wrong??? God says Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles...Peter was the Apostle to the Jews...
Your list is exclusively from Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians who were guilty then of what Luther, Zwingli, Calvin et al were guilty of 1500 years later. He was railing against their practices, not against the newly formed Church.
You say that Paul is the Apostle for the Gentile Church of which you are a member. Does that mean that you are guilty of what they were?
I only repeated that Paul was the Apostle for the Gentiles...Again, God made that determination...
11:2 Paul was the bishop in charge of an area. Peter was his superior.
God clearly disagrees with you and your church...And it seems like Paul wrote this verse just for you guys...
2Co 12:11 I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.
2Co 11:28 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.
Appears as tho God is correcting you again...
6 For I think that I am not in any way inferior to these “superapostles.” Paul was speaking of these intruders who were teaching other than the true Gospel.
Here's the real verse:
2Co 11:5 For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.
So, you are wrong again...There were no other Apostles than the ones talked about in the Gospels...You missed the context...Paul is telling us that he can boast, and make these determinations since he is equal to Peter, or any other Apostle...
The Gospels and the whole New Testament make clear the relative positions of Peter and Paul. Not two epistles of admonishment to a people who are falling under the spell of false teachings.
The Catholic religion doesn't believe God and the scriptures when He tells you that Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles...And Peter, to the Jews...
I wouldn't put too much stock in what the Catholic religion says about the relative positions of Paul and Peter...
You claim that you are speaking for God based upon a pair of letters from Paul to the Corinthians who were going astray? Paul was in charge of all the churches in his area.
It makes no sense to claim that Paul was the only Apostle to the Gentiles. 1 Peter is Peter’s direction to the Asia Minor churches, most of which were set up by Paul. And 2 Peter shows the position of directorship over all the churches, not just the Jewish ones.
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.