GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | Donate | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter

Author Topic: Peter the Rock  (Read 98868 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4688
  • Manna: 157
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #795 on: July 04, 2011, 06:15:55 PM »
Quote
Now please, cease and desist from trying to tell us what we believe about Jesus' body and the Eucharist.  Jesus has a glorified body is both matter and spirit, which is a presence that is "entirely physical" but not bound by physical laws, an incorruptible fusing of matter and spirit, a glorified body.  The connection between the Eucharistic chapter v.6 and Jesus' actual resurrected body means that Jesus is present in his glorified body, a physical spirit-body, whole and entire.

Selene,

I did not tell you what Catholics believe about anything. They believe all kinds of things. I told you what the pope wrote in his book. In those eucharistic verses he says the body of Christ is spiritual and NOT physical.

As far as your "physical order" I do not know what that means so I have no idea if it contradicts his earlier statement or not.  However your CCC does not say it is a physical body. It says real, true and substantial which is consistent with a spiritual body as the pope explains.

If you want to go ahead and believe that Jesus is physically in the eucharist you may go ahead but it is not what the pope teaches. You may believe anything you want. Peace. JohnR

facepalm!

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #795 on: July 04, 2011, 06:15:55 PM »

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #796 on: July 18, 2011, 11:46:39 AM »
Quote
[Frankly, I have no problem with admitting that Peter was the Bishop of Rome. In his letters he called himself a bishop, and no  historical account I've seen denies that he ministered in Rome. But I don't think that was the issue in this thread./quote]

Steve,

The letters attributed to Peter do NOT identify him as a bishop. An elder is not a bishop unless you bring in the definition of "overseer" which could apply as to multiple overseers.  But elder never means a monarchical (single rule) Bishop. Scripture knows the difference. When it says elder it means elder.

Brown also concludes in his books that Peter did not actually write those letters. Even Eusebius questioned all the Peter letters except 1 Peter. Brown says it was written probably by a later disciple of Peter. It was common back then to write in the name of a disciple. There are more gospels and writiings attributed to apostles than there are books in the NT. The ancients knew many were not written by an apostle. You can see that in Eusebius' writings.
Peace, JohnR


Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #796 on: July 18, 2011, 11:46:39 AM »

Offline stevehut

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3769
  • Manna: 70
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #797 on: July 19, 2011, 04:46:52 PM »

Offline stevehut

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3769
  • Manna: 70
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #798 on: December 22, 2011, 09:35:10 PM »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #798 on: December 22, 2011, 09:35:10 PM »

Offline asachild

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
  • Manna: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #799 on: December 23, 2011, 06:51:19 AM »
Let me say this again:  

It was not Rome that gave St. Peter the keys.  It was God Himself.  Are you denying that God did not give Peter the keys?  We are not establishing anything from the Old Testament because it was in the New Testament that God gave the keys to Peter.

Lighthammer is correct.  So far, I have not seen one Protestant say anything about Jesus giving the keys to the Apostle Peter.  And Christ gave this key (which means "authority) to only one man.  

Keys are used to open and close.

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, AND whatever you loose on earth will be loosed on heaven." MT. 16:19

You referenced
"I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he open no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open."  Is. 22:22

In Mt.18:18 Jesus is speaking to his discipleS and says "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

The Mt 18 Scripture shows that the disciples were given the *same* authority.  It seems that the RCC interprets the Mt 16 reference as giving only Peter this authority.  But the passage does not make that a clear cut interpretation.  Jesus was gathered with his disciples and asked them who people said He was and Peter inspired by the Father answered "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Jesus then blesses Peter.

The RCC asserts that the keys to the kingdom were given to Peter alone, but the passage does not make that clear.  Jesus may have been speaking to *all* the disciples in regards to the keys to the kingdom. 

In fact, the later Scripture in Mt 18:18 when Jesus is clearly speaking to *all* the disciples would indicate that that authority *was* given to all the disciples, because Jesus repeats that " whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" clearly indicating that this authority was not given to Peter alone.

Regards,
AsAChild

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #799 on: December 23, 2011, 06:51:19 AM »



Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #800 on: December 23, 2011, 11:02:07 AM »
Quote
The RCC asserts that the keys to the kingdom were given to Peter alone, but the passage does not make that clear.  Jesus may have been speaking to *all* the disciples in regards to the keys to the kingdom.

asachild,

Bishop Ambrose of Milan asserts this viewpoint. From Paul Johnsosns book A History of Christianity.

page 103 regarding Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, 373-97

"'What is said to Peter.' he wrote, 'is said to the Apostles' - thus brushing
aside any special pleading for Rome. And again: 'All we bishops have in the blessed
Apostle Peter received the keys of the kingdom of Heaven,''Christ gave to his
Apostles the power of remitting sins, which has been transmitted by the Apostles
to the sacerdotal office.''We are not usurping a power but obeying a command.'"

Clearly at one time it was the tradition that ALL the apostles got those keys and not just Peter. Peace, JohnR

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #801 on: December 23, 2011, 11:39:47 AM »
Quote
The RCC asserts that the keys to the kingdom were given to Peter alone, but the passage does not make that clear.  Jesus may have been speaking to *all* the disciples in regards to the keys to the kingdom.

asachild,

Bishop Ambrose of Milan asserts this viewpoint. From Paul Johnsosns book A History of Christianity.

page 103 regarding Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, 373-97

"'What is said to Peter.' he wrote, 'is said to the Apostles' - thus brushing aside any special pleading for Rome. And again: 'All we bishops have in the blessed Apostle Peter received the keys of the kingdom of Heaven,''Christ gave to his
Apostles the power of remitting sins, which has been transmitted by the Apostles to the sacerdotal office.''We are not usurping a power but obeying a command.'"

Clearly at one time it was the tradition that ALL the apostles got those keys and not just Peter. Peace, JohnR

Who is saying that the rest of the Apostles DIDN'T have the power of the keys?  The point is that Jesus gave Peter PREEMINENCE among the Apostles. 

At NO time did Jesus EVER single out another Apostle to give him this power.  Jesus repeated the words - almost verbatim - from the prophecy of Eliakim in Isaiah 22:22.
"I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; what he opens, no one will shut, what he shuts, no one will open."

He singles out Peter as the head in other places in the Gospel:
John 21:15-19
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?

Offline asachild

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
  • Manna: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #802 on: December 23, 2011, 02:13:29 PM »
Quote
The RCC asserts that the keys to the kingdom were given to Peter alone, but the passage does not make that clear.  Jesus may have been speaking to *all* the disciples in regards to the keys to the kingdom.

asachild,

Bishop Ambrose of Milan asserts this viewpoint. From Paul Johnsosns book A History of Christianity.

page 103 regarding Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, 373-97

"'What is said to Peter.' he wrote, 'is said to the Apostles' - thus brushing aside any special pleading for Rome. And again: 'All we bishops have in the blessed Apostle Peter received the keys of the kingdom of Heaven,''Christ gave to his
Apostles the power of remitting sins, which has been transmitted by the Apostles to the sacerdotal office.''We are not usurping a power but obeying a command.'"

Clearly at one time it was the tradition that ALL the apostles got those keys and not just Peter. Peace, JohnR

Who is saying that the rest of the Apostles DIDN'T have the power of the keys?  The point is that Jesus gave Peter PREEMINENCE among the Apostles. 

The concept of preeminence seems so antithetical to the very words of Jesus. 

"Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest. And He said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called 'benefactors.'" But *not* so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves."
Lk 22: 24

""...He asked them, 'What was it you disputed among yourselves on the road?' But they kept silent, for on the road they had disputed among themselves who would be the greatest. And He sat down, called the twelve and said to them, 'If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.'" Mk 9:34-

And of Jesus:
"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God and thing to be grasped." Philip. 2

"...the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you..." Mt. 20:25-

Quote
At NO time did Jesus EVER single out another Apostle to give him this power.  Jesus repeated the words - almost verbatim - from the prophecy of Eliakim in Isaiah 22:22.
"I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; what he opens, no one will shut, what he shuts, no one will open."

He singles out Peter as the head in other places in the Gospel:
John 21:15-19
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?

Offline asachild

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
  • Manna: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #803 on: December 25, 2011, 01:29:28 PM »

I posted what gotquestions.org said. There isn't any contradiction. Peter was sent to the House of Israel, while Paul was sent to the Gentile. Keys to the kingdom are had by all.

My dear, there is NOTHING in that weblink that you posted that even mentions Israel or Gentiles.  I see the word "Pharisees" in there, but nothing about Peter being sent to the House of Israel and Paul to the Gentiles. 

The following is written about Paul:

But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel.
Acts 9:15

And he said to me, “Go, for I am sending you far away to preach to the Gentiles.

Offline asachild

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
  • Manna: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #804 on: December 25, 2011, 01:41:23 PM »

Quote
Jesus died to free us from the tyranny of works.

quote=Catholica]

Being obedient to authorities is not a work.

Titus 3:1 Remind them to be under the control of magistrates and authorities, to be obedient, to be open to every good enterprise.

It is right to pursue peace and obedience, however, we are not given the option of absolute submissive obedience at all times to all authorities -

"Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this  name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on us! But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than man."
Acts 5:29

Regards,
AsAChild

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #805 on: December 28, 2011, 09:31:23 AM »
The concept of preeminence seems so antithetical to the very words of Jesus. 

"Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest. And He said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called 'benefactors.'" But *not* so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves."
Lk 22: 24

""...He asked them, 'What was it you disputed among yourselves on the road?' But they kept silent, for on the road they had disputed among themselves who would be the greatest. And He sat down, called the twelve and said to them, 'If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.'" Mk 9:34-

And of Jesus:
"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God and thing to be grasped." Philip. 2

"...the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you..." Mt. 20:25-

THANK YOU.

You couldn't have described the office of the Pope ANY better.  His official Title is "Servant of the Servants of Christ."

Peter was elevated by Jesus himself to be the earthly leader (Matt. 16:16-19, Luke 22:31-32, John 21:15-19).  Her did not elevate himself to this post . . .

You just have to love Peter - impetuous, bold, quick to speak, first out of the boat, and to pull out a sword - easy to identify with him.  :)

Jesus had warned them that the Shepherd would be stricken and "all of you will be made to stumble."  Peter contradicts the Lord declaring that "even if all are made to stumble because of You, I will *never* be made to stumble.  Jesus assures him that along with stumbling with everyone else, Peter will also deny Him 3 times before the night is over.  Peter then declares that he would not deny Jesus, even if he had to die with Him.

All of Jesus' disciples abandoned Him, failed Him, stumbled -  they couldn't even stay awake for Him while He prayed.  Jesus even forewarned Peter that he would specifically deny Him, not once or twice, but three times.  The other disciples just ran, John hung around but kept a low profile, but Peter denied Jesus three times, just as Jesus had foretold and as Peter had confidently contradicted in front of all.

And then they saw their beloved One beaten beyond recognition and crucified.  All of them had walked with Him intimately for 3 years, and all of them abandoned Him.  But Peter had not only abandoned, he had publicly denied - multiple times.  How crushed and devastated they all must have been, but Peter even more so.  It's all over,  let's just go back to fishing.

Jesus had told them he would make them fishers of men, but here they are back being fishers of fish.  Albeit not very successful ones.

And Jesus, in His loving mercy takes the one who must have assuredly been the lowest of all, for his offense loomed larger than the others, and restores him.  It is interesting that Jesus addresses him "*Simon*, son of Jonah" here.   

Jesus lets him know; it's not over, you haven't destroyed every chance you had.  Peter had denied Jesus publicly 3 times and now Jesus asks him publicly three times, 'lovest thou Me more than these?"  What you see as an establishment of Peter's preeminence can also be seen as Peter's restoration and redemption. 

Jesus had taught them in Mt 10  "whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven."  The other guys just ran, they had not committed an act that could result in their being disowned.  Peter had.

And if he who had not only abandoned the Lord, but publicly denied Him 3 times was restored to serve, he who had fallen the farthest yet was redeemed would be able to encourage those other brothers whenever their hearts assailed them. 

Regards,
AsAChild

Not really sure where you are going with this.  Peter sinned - just as we ALL sin. We have ALL abandoned Christ at one time or another.
Every time we sin - we abandon Christ - so what's your point?  That he couldn't have been the leader because he sinned?

That only displays your total ignorance of the Scriptures AND the christian faith . . .

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #806 on: December 29, 2011, 12:36:22 PM »
Quote
That only displays your total ignorance of the Scriptures AND the christian faith . . .

elvisman,

Yet you still think that Peter was a bishop of Rome and that apostolic succession is true. What do you think THAT false stuff displays about your own knowledge of scripture and history of chrisianity. Not much it seems to me. Peace, JohnR

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #807 on: December 29, 2011, 12:57:46 PM »
Quote
That only displays your total ignorance of the Scriptures AND the christian faith . . .

elvisman,

Yet you still think that Peter was a bishop of Rome and that apostolic succession is true. What do you think THAT false stuff displays about your own knowledge of scripture and history of chrisianity. Not much it seems to me. Peace, JohnR

WRONG.
I've already given you proof from Irenaeus and others that you simply disregard and claim fraudulent because you can't prove otherwise.  Irenaeus gave us a comrehensive list from the Second Century going all the way back to Peter and you can't handle it.

The historical egg is on your face, my ignorant, anti-Catholic friend . . .

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #808 on: December 31, 2011, 08:59:14 PM »
Quote
WRONG.
I've already given you proof from Irenaeus and others that you simply disregard and claim fraudulent because you can't prove otherwise.  Irenaeus gave us a comrehensive list from the Second Century going all the way back to Peter and you can't handle it.

The historical egg is on your face, my ignorant, anti-Catholic friend .

elvisman,

ALL reputable historians know that those bishops lists were fabricated and that Peter was never a bishop of Rome.

You are in denial and it just goes to show the typical Catholic attitude to defend anything if their church teaches it.

It also makes protestants think you dont know anything. Peace, JohnR

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #809 on: January 10, 2012, 04:28:34 PM »
elvisman,

ALL reputable historians know that those bishops lists were fabricated and that Peter was never a bishop of Rome.

You are in denial and it just goes to show the typical Catholic attitude to defend anything if their church teaches it.

It also makes protestants think you dont know anything. Peace, JohnR

There you go again making ignorant comments like "All reputable Historians know . . ."  That is a complete and total fabrication - but why should you stop now?  Most of your posts contain one lie or another.

As I have stated before - I can give you a laundry list of theologians and historians who disagree with your false charge that "ALL reputable historians" know that Irenaeus' list is fraudulent. 
Face it pal - you've been exposed yet again . . .