I was thinking about this today. In Matthew 16:16-19;

quote:16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."



Now I know this was mentioned in Dogma as a joke, but if you think about it, it does seem to imply that Jesus is sanctioning Peter to control the Church. If it is true that the Catholic Church has maintained historic episcopate, wouldn't that render the arguments that some Protestants make about Catholics moot if you believe in the literal translation of the Bible?

I personally don't believe in literal translation and divine inspiration. (Of course, the writers of the book were inspired by the Divine, or else they wouldn't be writing about God. I mean Divine Inspiration in the more well-known "The Bible is the inspired word of God and, therefore, is infallable" sense.) But I was wondering what others on these boards thought. If this verse did point to a divine mandate for Peter's Church, would people who aren't Catholic be acting against the will of God?

I don't see how anyone could argue against that. Any and all interpretations lead to the founding of a church by Peter. There really is no way around this point.



I don't really care though, and I don't protestants do either. They're probably too busy protesting gays or something. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by dlmcc:

I was thinking about this today. In Matthew 16:16-19;

Now I know this was mentioned in Dogma as a joke, but if you think about it, it does seem to imply that Jesus is sanctioning Peter to control the Church. If it is true that the Catholic Church has maintained historic episcopate, wouldn't that render the arguments that some Protestants make about Catholics moot if you believe in the literal translation of the Bible?

I personally don't believe in literal translation and divine inspiration. (Of course, the writers of the book were inspired by the Divine, or else they wouldn't be writing about God. I mean Divine Inspiration in the more well-known "The Bible is the inspired word of God and, therefore, is infallable" sense.) But I was wondering what others on these boards thought. If this verse did point to a divine mandate for Peter's Church, would people who aren't Catholic be acting against the will of God?



I think that this (and the claim that Peter was the first Pope) is the reason that Catholics feel justified.

My "disagreement" stems from the fact that the Roman Catholic Church had not even been established during the time of Peter.

The 1st Century church was called "the way", and in Acts (i think), we find when they were first called Christians.

So, in Mathew 16, Peter is the rock that Jesus would build His church; but that does NOT MEAN that Jesus' church is the RCC, but only means that Jesus' church is the church of believers in Jesus as the Christ.

Yes, but it clearly stipulates that Peter would be the founder for this church. What other church's can trace their origin back to Peter?

Just because he didn't find the Vatican at that time doesn't mean a thing. Plenty of things weren't established by George Washington, yet he is still the "rock" for the US government. Peter didn't start any church, but he is definitely the "rock" for the Roman Catholic Church, unless you can show otherwise.....

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Yes, but it clearly stipulates that Peter would be the founder for this church. What other church's can trace their origin back to Peter?



There are a couple of others by the way. I should have included that in my original post...Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox...

Even then though, those only came into fruition after disagreement with the Roman Church(Eastern Orthodox at least. Can't say I've ever heard of Oriental Orthodox) and eventually splitting with the Church.

Jesus founded a Church that was under the authority of the apostles. Say a church somewhere in turkey was doing something wrong the would correct it. They were obedient to them. This was the church Jesus founded and put authority in. It eventually became to be called the Roman Catholic Church.

QUOTE Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Yes, but it clearly stipulates that Peter would be the founder for this church. What other church's can trace their origin back to Peter?

Napoleon, please reread this part of the post.

quote: stems from the fact that the Roman Catholic Church had not even been established during the time of Peter.

The church that Jesus was referring to is the bride of Christ (all believers in Christ- as a whole- is that church).

This is different from using the term 'church' as meaning the RCC (or any other Christian denomination).

So I guess all christians are going against the bible then?

I thought you were for literal interpretation of the bible. What gives?

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

So I guess all christians are going against the bible then?

I thought you were for literal interpretation of the bible. What gives?





please explain

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



please explain

on second thought, i'll try to explain first.

Pay particular attention to verse 32

Eph 5:25-33

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

the word 'church' translated in the KJV means:

ekkle**772;sia

ek-klay-see'-ah

From a compound of G1537 and a derivative of G2564; a calling out, that is, (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both): - assembly, church.

this is why i said:

quote:(all believers in Christ- as a whole- is that church)

which is:

(Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both): - assembly, church.

But as for Jewish synagogue(heavenly) in this context, would be prophecy. It would be concerning after the Second Coming, when God fullfils His promise to His people, Isreal-- the "firstborn".

I hope this cleared up what i was trying to say. So, how do you mean that i was not taking the Bible as literal?

And i am also still confused about what you meant by "So I guess all christians are going against the bible then?"

Could you please explain?

You're not a catholic so you'll never admit defeat, even though it is written in plain english right in front of you.

Any attempt I make at showing that Catholic Church is the church referenced would only be feebly refuted by because you can't admit defeat, because you have to believe that your religion is right.

I do have one question though.

What Church did Peter help to establish? What Church traces all of it's "apostolic succession" directly to Peter? What religion was the first concrete christian religion?

The answer should be obvious.

It's obvious that there is only one christian sect that can claim Peter as it's "rock". Whether you choose to accept that or not is your own decision. I can't make you accept history, so I won't even bother.

What if Peter was set to plant the church but otheres Eg LUther,Calvin,Wesly were set to GROW it?

They didn't grow the church that Peter started, they broke away from it.

QUOTE Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

You're not a catholic so you'll never admit defeat,

This is a trick that my step-daughter uses.

She will say, "i know you will say no, but can i ..."

I hate it when she uses this trick, because if i allow her to do it (whatever "it" is), then she learns that if she wants her way, all she has to do is start out with, "i know you will say no, but can i ...".

And if i dont allow "it", then she feels as though she was right.

The way i deal with her, is to give the reason that i am allowing or disallowing. But for your, "You're not a catholic so you'll never admit defeat,"; how do i deal with this... since i already showed where scripture interpreted scripture... AND i have asked you to explain why you feel that

(1)i am saying that all Christians are going against the bible

(2)that i am not taking a literalist standpoint.

even though it is written in plain english right in front of you.

No. It does say that on Peter, Jesus would build His church. The text even says that Jesus is giving Peter authority "to bind and to loose"... in otherwords, Peter has authority to interpret scripture pertaining to the differences between the commands to the Jews and whether they apply to the Gentiles in Jesus' church.

Now, back to whether the church that Jesus was talking about, is the Catholic Church or Christians: Catholicism is not Christianity but it is a subset of Christianity.



Any attempt I make at showing that Catholic Church is the church referenced would only be feebly refuted by because you can't admit defeat, because you have to believe that your religion is right.

This is why i asked you to show (explain).

I am Lutheran, which is also a subset of Christianity. So, my Religion is Christianity. But my religion (small 'r') is Lutheran.

I tend to agree with the doctrine (small 'd') that the Lutherans teach, based on my own reading and studying of (primarily) the Bible (Doctrine with big 'D'). Although, i have stated that there are things that the Lutherans teach, that i think are incorrect... although, i seldom point out, in TOTSE, what these things are, that i disagree with. And when i do point them out, i have tried to emphasize that it is my thought/opinion.

The reason why i'm pointing this out, is that, i am (despite how i've may have presented myself in this forum) very objective. And to be as honest as i can (without meaning this as an insult to anyone else), Rust has been the only person (for the most part) in this forum that i have disagreed with; that has given facts and interpretations that has even come close to swaying me to admit defeat (defeat is the wrong word here, because it implies that i am here to argue.. which i've said many time, that is not why i'm here).

I'm pretty sure that, throughout my time in TOTSE, i have been pretty much consistant. I think i have presented doctrine that consistantly agrees with Doctrine. (this was something that i learned from Eil, early in my membership, because i had made two statements, that out of context, contradicted... but in context, agreed).. I have to present myself as dogmatic, to try to avoid confusion and because my purpose here is as a 'sower' and a 'serf'. There are too many people coming in and out of this forum, for me to present myself any less dogmatic. If we (meaning a very small group) were sitting in a bar, and having these discussions over a few beers; you would see more objectiveness (although, more mistakes, due to drunkeness). The dogma would still be there, but it would be easier to explain where i disagree with (little 'd')doctrine.

I do have one question though.

What Church did Peter help to establish? What Church traces all of it's "apostolic succession" directly to Peter? What religion was the first concrete christian religion?

That's 3 questions.... http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

1. Jesus' church. The body of believers i.e. Christian.

2. The Catholic Church, however, wasnt the RCC "formed" about 3 centuries after Peter died? And where in the Bible, reguarding any of the apostols, does the the Catholic Church use to justify "apostolic succession"? In other words, by what scripture does the RCC use, that allows the authority that Jesus gave to Peter, to be transfered to any successor?

3. If you think it was RCC, you are wrong. Read the book of Acts. If you dont want to read that much, then atleast check out Acts 11:26.

The answer should be obvious.

It's obvious that there is only one christian sect that can claim Peter as it's "rock".

First of all, it is not obvious, due to the answers of those questions. However, are you claiming that it is Peter's church and not Christ's church? This would make sense, as to why the Pope's authority can overrule what the Bible says.

And mind you, i'm pretty sure that i stayed out of the arguements that Digital was in, reguarding Catholicism. I had felt that it was wrong to "fight, Christian against Christian", but if the Pope's word is above God's Word, then i would question whether Catholocism is truely Christian. I mean, even

the NT does not override the OT (general statement.. there are specifics) but confirms it, and then takes it further.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

2. The Catholic Church, however, wasnt the RCC "formed" about 3 centuries after Peter died? And where in the Bible, reguarding any of the apostols, does the the Catholic Church use to justify "apostolic succession"? In other words, by what scripture does the RCC use, that allows the authority that Jesus gave to Peter, to be transfered to any successor?

That's simple; it's the scripture that we're all talking about, Matthew 16:16-19.

If Peter has the power to "Bind and Loose," he also has the power to pass off such power to another when he dies.

quote:Originally posted by dlmcc:

That's simple; it's the scripture that we're all talking about, Matthew 16:16-19.

If Peter has the power to "Bind and Loose," he also has the power to pass off such power to another when he dies.

I expected this answer.

Does Scripture say that he passed it off?

Scripture doesn't say a lot of things.

Scripture never condemns abortion, or says life begins at conception, that slavery is evil, or that segregation shouldn't happen.

We have to look at history and religion and make connections. It obviously isn't hard to connect Peter to the Roman Catholic Church, considering he was the first pope and all.

Like I already said though, you're never going to admit that you're wrong because you can't, so I'm not even going to bother with your futile debate.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

We have to look at history and religion and make connections. It obviously isn't hard to connect Peter to the Roman Catholic Church, considering he was the first pope and all.

But that is the point. The RCC started in what, 3rd or 4th century. How could he be the first pope, if there were no RCC to be pope of? It is a claim of the RCC that he is the 1st pope. (which is what i said in the first two paragraphs of my first post on this thread).

That's fine that you dont want to "debate" this anymore, but you still have not shown me anything to make me even consider "admitting defeat", nor have you shown how i havent taken the Bible literally.

the first popes may not have been called popes but they were the same thing to the same church as they are now. The head of the Church.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

But that is the point. The RCC started in what, 3rd or 4th century. How could he be the first pope, if there were no RCC to be pope of? It is a claim of the RCC that he is the 1st pope. (which is what i said in the first two paragraphs of my first post on this thread).

The name Roman Catholic Church may not have existed till that point, but the core that would form the Roman Catholic Church did.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

The name Roman Catholic Church may not have existed till that point, but the core that would form the Roman Catholic Church did.



now i understand how atheist must feel like when they are talking to us...

The point is, RCC is the subset of the church that is mentioned in Mathew... you even said this yourself, in the Catholic vs. Christian thread. That church (all believers in Jesus as the Christ) is the Christian Church, because we believe that Jesus the Christ died for our sins.

When Jesus said that Peter would be the rock the He (Jesus) would build His (Jesus') Church, He was saying that He (Jesus) was going to use Peter as His servant, because he (Peter) believed. That Church is believers in Jesus as the Christ. It is not the RCC, it is the Christian Church. The RCC can be part of it, but it is not it (as the whole). And in fact, in the book Revelations, John was told by Jesus to write 7 letters to the 7 churches, and none of them were addressed to the RCC (or the Pope-- because there had not been a Pope yet-- the RCC claimed Peter as the first Pope, long after Peter's death).

You still havent shown that the RCC is the church that Jesus was talking about, but the Bible shows that there were (Christian) churches prior to the RCC. And you havent shown that Peter had transfered his authority as the "leader of the church" after he would die. Scripture should interpret Scripture. So until you can show me, in Scripture, that the RCC is the Church that was meant in Scripture.. as opposed to the churches that i have pointed out from Scripture.. i am going to have to stay doubtful at best, that your claim is the correct one.

It's not going to say it for you literally. I already said that you have to look at history and a t religions to draw conclusions.

To most people, the obvious conclusion is that the Church Jesus talks about is the Roman Catholic Church. Why? Because they trace all their popes back to Peter, they were the first established Church and formed from the early churchs.

It's a pretty damn obvious conclusion, except that it doesn't use "scripture". That's your only sticking point. Scripture "has" to mention it otherwise it is inadmissable, right? Bullshit. Like I already said, plenty of things are never mentioned in scripture but we infer. I think a retard would be able to infer that the "Church" mentioned in Matthew is obviously what would become the Roman Catholic Church.

It is as plain as day.

Scripture does not hold all the answers. It does not provide every answer to every question, because if it did then there wouldn't be any other religions.

You're not a Catholic so it would be sacrilige for you to admit that the Catholic Church is the one true church, so you can never admit to it, even if I were to prove myself right, you still wouldn't admit to it, why? BECAUSE YOU AREN'T CATHOLIC AND YOU CAN"T ADMIT THAT CATHOLICISM IS RIGHT.

I guess I will debate this now.

quote:The point is, RCC is the subset of the church that is mentioned in Mathew... you even said this yourself, in the Catholic vs. Christian thread. That church (all believers in Jesus as the Christ) is the Christian Church, because we believe that Jesus the Christ died for our sins.

There is no "christian church" though. There is no one church that encompasses all of the followers of Jesus. Therefore, one of the Church's has to be right(assuming god and everything else is right). One Church's interpretation has to be right. Why? Because all of the different sects are different in one way or another, which means that they can't all be right. It's like having 10 people reach for the golden apple. Only one can have it in the end.

quote:When Jesus said that Peter would be the rock the He (Jesus) would build His (Jesus') Church, He was saying that He (Jesus) was going to use Peter as His servant, because he (Peter) believed. That Church is believers in Jesus as the Christ.

No, it would be the physical church on earth. We have to take things literally, remember?

quote:It is not the RCC, it is the Christian Church.

There is no Christian Church.

quote:The RCC can be part of it, but it is not it (as the whole). And in fact, in the book Revelations, John was told by Jesus to write 7 letters to the 7 churches, and none of them were addressed to the RCC (or the Pope-- because there had not been a Pope yet-- the RCC claimed Peter as the first Pope, long after Peter's death).

& churches as in 7 cities. Of course it wouldn't be the Roman Catholic Church. The Church didn't organize yet, and even if it did exist, a letter still wouldn't have been written because the letters were addressed to communities.

quote:You still havent shown that the RCC is the church that Jesus was talking about, but the Bible shows that there were (Christian) churches prior to the RCC.

And those would collect to form the Roman Catholic Church, leaving the Catholic Church as the only possible modern reference to that line. The only other possibility is that the "church" referenced no longer exists, and thus we're all doomed.

quote:And you havent shown that Peter had transfered his authority as the "leader of the church" after he would die.

Apostolic Succession. (http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp)

""Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80])."

quote:Scripture should interpret Scripture.

Should, but sometimes it can't, therefore man must interject.

quote:So until you can show me, in Scripture, that the RCC is the Church that was meant in Scripture.. as opposed to the churches that i have pointed out from Scripture.. i am going to have to stay doubtful at best, that your claim is the correct one.

I think I've proved myself quite well, though you won't agree because to agree would mean to admit that all your premonitions about religion were wrong, and I doubt you'll do that to a stranger on the internet.

I also suggest you read this. It is very good and uses both historical account and scripture.

http://www.cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a066.html

I didn't read the majority of the thread as the entire thing is based entirely on fiction.

You are using your religions bible as a proof of your religion. Doesn't this seem a little weird to you?

If i were to write a book saying:

"17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Daz son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Daz, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Would you accept me, and any religion i decided to create, as God's will?

If you didn't would you be acting against God's will?

Answer these simple questions.

You will see the contradiction of religion eventually.

This is being argued with the assumption that the bible is right. I think everyone here knows that the bible may be wrong(I actually think it is wrong), but they have faith that it's right, so they're arguing from that POV, and I will too.

I know what you're saying, but your argument applies more to a "Is religion right?" or "Does god exist?" thread, where nothing on the bible is assumed.

This entire thread is being argued from the perspective that one of the christian sects is right, and we're using the bible/history to prove that one of them is right.

np http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Thank you. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by dlmcc:

would people who aren't Catholic be acting against the will of God?

that what the Catholic Church wants you to believe. weither its ture or not is beyond me i havent really looked into it. but thats also one of the reasons people left the Catholic Church. very deep thoughts i can tell youre an intelligent person, thats good not enough people like you

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



I think that this (and the claim that Peter was the first Pope) is the reason that Catholics feel justified.

My "disagreement" stems from the fact that the Roman Catholic Church had not even been established during the time of Peter.

The 1st Century church was called "the way", and in Acts (i think), we find when they were first called Christians.

So, in Mathew 16, Peter is the rock that Jesus would build His church; but that does NOT MEAN that Jesus' church is the RCC, but only means that Jesus' church is the church of believers in Jesus as the Christ.

Precisely. Peter was the foundation of the church. Where does Jesus say that all of Peter's apprentices would be rulers of the church? Where? Nowhere; Jesus simply gives Peter the command to be the foundation, the starting point.

So then what did that foundation point lead to?

Every piece of fact and logic tells me, and over a billion catholics that it is the Roman Catholic Church.

what killes me is that the people say! hey the bible is black and white. when they want it to say what they want, but the truth be known the bible IS black and white, take this

we are all stangers on this earth (where we planted here) even now in heaven angles walk around with firey weapons ( heaven isnt heaven) he through down his rod and itt became a snake, well then moses rod did to and killed his! BUT HOW DID HIS ROD BECOME A SNAKE (WHAT POWERS ARE OUT THERE)