11 Reasons the Authority of Christianity Is Centered on St. Peter and Rome

stpeterslist ^ | December 19, 2012

[CynicalBear]

>>Satan will be excited to hear about the new rules because he not only knows that Christ died on the cross....he BELIEVES it<<

But he rebelled against God and denied the all supreme power of God. It’s like Catholics do today by claiming that they need to somehow “earn” part of their salvation. Even to the extent that if not enough is done in this life to “atone” for sins they are sent to purgatory to finish the payment.

Those who truly “believe” on the Lord Jesus Christ believe that He completed the payment for sins perfectly and no other “atonement” is needed.

[terycarl]

Which “denomination” are you “assuming” any one of us belong to? Have you ever heard any of us put our faith in a “denomination” like the Catholics put their faith in the RCC?

well I guess I assumed a little, for example, I assume that you attend Sunday services somewhere???? I assume that you tithe to someone, so I just assumed that it was a denomination.....I guess that you could send it to one of many T.V. "evangelists"...sorry

[smvoice]

I guess it's time to give you 11 Reasons the Authority of Christianity is NOT, has NOT, and NEVER will be, centered on St. Peter and Rome. I'll give you one at a time, for your understanding and careful studying God's word for truth.

1. Paul. Why wasn't Paul numbered with Peter and the 11? Paul speaks of the twelve as a SEPARATE body of apostles when he says that the resurrected Christ was "seen..of the twelve" (I Cor. 15:5). Get that? He did NOT consider himself one of the twelve that Christ sent out to proclaim God's kingdom at hand, or offer it to Israel. Paul's apostleship was separate and distinct from that of the twelve. Paul cannot be considered as one with the twelve, for just as eleven apostles would have been too few for God's kingdom plans, so thirteen apostles would have been TOO MANY for God's kingdom plans. There will be TWELVE thrones (besides Christ's) in the kingdom, NOT thirteen. HENCE Paul belonged to ANOTHER PROGRAM, and was sent forth to proclaim ANOTHER MESSAGE. That's what Roman through Philemon is all about.

Paul speaks of the twelve as a SEPARATE body of apostles (I COr. 15:5). Why is this so important to understanding Christianity, St. Peter, and Rome? You tell me. What about Paul? Where will he fit into Christ's Kingdom when He returns to set it up? And WHY did he NOT number himself with Peter and the 11, if he was another one of them? p.s. Paul and Rome we know about from God's word. Peter is strangely absent from Rome in GOd's word.

[CynicalBear]

>>and then let His church lapse into apostasy for one thousand six hundred years<<

Just like happened to Israel. They also have been in error since Christ was crucified. Are you saying the Jews have not been “let” in their error since? What’s so great about the 1600 years you claim the RCC was there before Luther? If your contention that “God would have never let the Church lapse into error” held any validity than the Jews would still be faithful to God’s word because they after all were His chosen people. That meme of how long the RCC has been in existence hold no credibility. Time and time again God’s people have fallen away from worshiping Him in the way He commanded. And time and time again God has brought something to put them back on track.

It’s time Catholics understand that they are still with the group who stayed under the curse rather than repent and change.

[Syncro]

No, the church does not allow those that she knows are in a state of sin to do much of anything.

"handle on it" of course, as you know, means taken steps to assure that it doesn't happen again.

In one of your own posts you said a priest in a state of sin could do the conscreating ritual.

And not let them do much of anything?

So it is not much of anything that they knew these priests were forcing children into vile sexual acts and sent them to other areas where the did the same thing?

That is totally unacceptable.

Catholics just ignore that? That sure isn't handling it right and is NOT taking steps to make sure it doesn't happen again. In fact, they ALLOWED it to happen over and over again. Pathetic.

[Uri’el-2012]

God gets all the credit for its existance...but He USED the Catholic church to preserve it and protect it and bring it down through the years so you'd get to read and understand it.

That is not what you said.

This claim can only be claimed by a PRIDEFUL organization.

We all know where the sin of PRIDE comes from.

And from whom

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[terycarl]

Sexual immorality within non-Catholic denominations, especially in the cases that I have been personally aware of, are more along the lines of garden variety adultery between a male and female adult, not the homosexual rape of children.

Nope, apples and oranges. Actually the incidences of priest misbehavior along these lines fall much more along homosexual lines that paedophilia....chicken hawks as they call themselves, preying on young, near or post adolescent boys. I'm sure that priests are also guilty of relationships with adults of the opposite sex, but this discussion concerned incidents of sex with minors, and the Catholics are still far behind,IN NUMBERS, than the aforementioned groups

[Syncro]

LOL!

[Syncro]

there were thousands of them and they BECAME KNOWN, by the public and themselves, as Catholic

No they didn't. They were a part of the body of Christ, the universal (catholic) church.

Scripture doesn't mention Catholic, only catholic.

Forcing your extra/anti Biblical belief system into the New Testament is a futile endevour.

[CynicalBear]

Yes you assumed a lot.

>>I assume that you attend Sunday services somewhere????<<

What’s so special about Sunday? Can’t believers gather every day? Can’t they let’s say gather each day at noon for instance? “Where two or three are gathered in my name there I am in their midst” says Christ. Would you say that could be around the dinner table? How about gathered around a camp fire for praise to God? When Christ is “in us” wherever we are their He is!!! Catholics think they have to “go meet Him” or something like that. How sad.

>>I assume that you tithe to someone,<<

Tithe? Seems like the least we could do. Who said that had to go to some organization? Does that “tithe” have to be money or can it be assistance for those that need it in some other way? I know that Catholic even in this forum like to brag about how much the Catholic Church does but I prefer following scripture.

Matthew 6:4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

>>so I just assumed that it was a denomination.....<<

Only the carnality of man has established the need for organized religion and such things as “denominations”. The gospel of Christ is much less cumbersome and contains much less carnal error. He simply offered Himself as the perfect and complete sacrifice for our sins and eliminated the need for any intermediaries by destroying the veil that separated us from our God. Now when the Father sees us He only sees Christ in us because of the covering of the shed blood of Christ. Catholics are much to encumbered with the shackles of the legalities of the RCC which denies the blood of Christ.

[boatbums]

nope...as you said, there were thousands of them and they BECAME KNOWN, by the public and themselves, as Catholic. The title can therefore be attributed to those who came before.....That's not a big deal in and of itself....there was a group of people, starting with the Apostles, who venerated Christ, followed Him as the Reedemer and postulated their beliefs to the masses. As they grew in number they became known as Catholics.....whatever....it was one group of people which grew to what the Catholic church is now.

Nope! The people who followed the Savior Jesus Christ, were known as "Christians":

and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. (Acts 11:26)

Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” (Acts 26:28)

However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. (I Peter 4:16)

The followers of Christ were called Christians and it was after the first century when the faith Christians held began to be called "catholic", because it was recognized as a universal faith that ALL those who followed Christ held to the same faith in Him as Savior, Lord and God.

[Natural Law]

"Wow!"

Please delete my account. I no longer wish to expose myself to the sin that pervades the Religion Forum and concede the cesspool to those who created it.

I do wish you peace.

[Syncro]

--- God made that very clear in the Bible ---

Which Bible?

It doesn't really matter.

No one can get anything out of it except by the Holy Spirit.

That's the method I use, and it is very effective with almost any translation.

[terycarl]

Not to be picky, but, I wonder why you think your church began when Jesus was arguably but an infant, only a few years old? You can't seriously believe this is also true, do you?

well it does stretch credibility a little....however, since Christ was God, and Hecertainly knew what and how He intended to form His church, it is not completely without merit to go back that far.....and the fact that noone knows the exact year or day helps....We're dealing with approximations here, not that the exact year had any meaning at all...

[terycarl]

God will NOT administer a sacrament that is tainted by the sinful hands of a priest who continued to use those hands to abuse young trusting children

sure He will, it certainly is not the fault of the recipient that the minister is tainted....The sacrament is of Gods doing, the priest merely administers it, if you are baptized by a bad priest, you are baptized, if he hears your confession and administers the sacrament of reconciliation, you are forgiven your sins, if he marries you, you are married...He may be in trouble with God....you are not

[terycarl]

FWIW, there were no Catholics around when the veil of the Temple was torn in two. Gentiles were not permitted in the Temple. For that matter, only the Jewish priests were allowed in that area, so if there were any witnesses to the occurrence, it would have been Jewish priests and no one else.

That would probably be true, however, the Catholics have first hand evidence that it took place. While they may not have witnessed it, they certainly heard about it the next day!!I can guarantee however, that there were no Lutherans nor Methodists there....probably not even 1 Baptist.

[presently no screen name]

Still having trouble seeing the fruits of the Spirit?

Too much TRUTH here? You betcha!

Wonder why ‘under the influence’ created such an uproar against a freeper when it wasn’t even there? hmmmm...Where’s that peace and love? Where’s the fruit?

However, I think it’s the liberal approach, it’s someone else’s fault.

God’s Word is the FINAL Authority FOREVER. Love IT and share IT.

[terycarl]

>> but the sculptors would....bare rocks tell nothing<< Wow! So God used a sculptor to write the ten commandments on those tablets of stone? Who knew? That must be in the “tradition information” that the Catholic Church hasn’t put in writing to this point still?

Luke 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

you know very well that in the first instance I added "except for the ten commandments.

in the second statement, the stones didn't cry out, did they??

[Syncro]

You missed the point entirely, I stand by my statement

God will NOT administer a sacrament that is tainted by the sinful hands of a priest who continued to use those hands to abuse young trusting children

God hates sin.

[terycarl]

In one of your own posts you said a priest in a state of sin could do the conscreating ritual.

Indeed he can, but without the authorization to do so by the church. If the priest is in a state of mortal sin, he can still perform as a priest....his ordination allowed him to do that. The church, of course would not approve if it knew of his sinful stste, but nevertheless the sacraments that he administered would be fully beneficial to the recipient...if he married you, you are married.