Do the scriptures support Papal Infallibility?

[winsome]

Abraham is referred to as a rock in Is 51:1-2
"Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him"

Besides it is Jesus himself who renames Simon as Kephas (Rock). 
"And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas"

[Jimmy]

Abraham is referred to as a rock in Is 51:1-2
"Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him"

Besides it is Jesus himself who renames Simon as Kephas (Rock). 
"And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas"

I stand corrected concerning the use of the word "rock".

[LightHammer]

Well I don't believe the papal succession couldn't be successive but I am trying to show some objectivity so when can have a meaningful discourse.

I understand the burden of proof is on me and so I'm refraining from making absolute statements that reinforce my position while I provide you my evidence.



Why does this sound like a politician that talks in circles that says a lot of nothing ?

You are insatiable!

1) When I present my beliefs with an absolute attitude you take umbrage and call me elitist.

2) When I try to employ a sense of objectivity you call me a politician.

Mclees get a life.

[LightHammer]

I am afraid that you are mixing up some things.
See, leadership and succession are two different things.

AVZ you're really messing with me here. I am writing clearly in English and you are interpreting it like its written in another language. I never once confused leadership with succession. In point of fact I said "the current Pope Francis as the successor of St. Peter inherits his (St. Peter's) leadership."

You quoted this from me in yet you make the accusation above. I am not equating the two succession and leadership. I said that that one (leadership) comes to us today through the continued act of the other (succession). Basically the Pope is Head Bishop In Charge because he succeeds St. Peter who was the Head Apostle In Charge. 

Peter could only be a successor if Jesus was dead...but He is not. He is alive.
That's why the order of Melchizedek is not one of succession.

No that's not correct. Peter wasn't a successor he was a representative. Remember "physical presence"? Christ is physically in Heaven and so He appoint physical representatives to act in His physical absence. This the point of the Church. We are not just the saved but the minsters to the world as well. Why? Because is not physically here. It is our job to be his hands and feet. Likewise it was the Apostles' job to be the physical leadership while our Lord is physically absent.

Death is not necessary and actually if Christ were dead representation would be impossible as you can't represent a person who doesn't exist anymore.

That's why the Order of Melchizedek is successive.

The rest of your points are irrelevant at the point and I don't think we'll get anywhere if we keep jumping from thought to thought. We are no longer arguing whether or not the priesthood is of Levi because we can agree that it is of Melchizedek. We are no longer arguing representation because we agree that representation was indeed what the Apostles were. We are no longer arguing for St. Peter's leadership because we agree that he was in fact the leader of the Apostles.

No we are arguing succession. This is the point now. Apart from Matthias selection in Acts, which seems to me more than conclusive, you now have other evidence supporting succession to address.

God Bless

[mclees8]

Well I don't believe the papal succession couldn't be successive but I am trying to show some objectivity so when can have a meaningful discourse.

I understand the burden of proof is on me and so I'm refraining from making absolute statements that reinforce my position while I provide you my evidence.



Why does this sound like a politician that talks in circles that says a lot of nothing ?

You are insatiable!

1) When I present my beliefs with an absolute attitude you take umbrage and call me elitist.

2) When I try to employ a sense of objectivity you call me a politician.

Mclees get a life.

OK   

I can't help it. Your wanting to come off as just being objective is more like a smoke screen for a very high opinion of your self. When you don't have and answer you are carefull so you won't lose face. You will aregue black is not black because its white with a little dirt on it. You would see most of us as not in your league with all your fancy two dollar words. I have no idea what you are trying to say. "absolute attitude" is that your always absolutely right and perfect. This to me is talking in circles. Fancy words like ambrage and elitist. If that means i see you as condesending and high minded. Yea I guess that fites

[AVZ]

I am afraid that you are mixing up some things.
See, leadership and succession are two different things.

AVZ you're really messing with me here. I am writing clearly in English and you are interpreting it like its written in another language. I never once confused leadership with succession. In point of fact I said "the current Pope Francis as the successor of St. Peter inherits his (St. Peter's) leadership."

You quoted this from me in yet you make the accusation above. I am not equating the two succession and leadership. I said that that one (leadership) comes to us today through the continued act of the other (succession). Basically the Pope is Head Bishop In Charge because he succeeds St. Peter who was the Head Apostle In Charge. 

Peter could only be a successor if Jesus was dead...but He is not. He is alive.
That's why the order of Melchizedek is not one of succession.

No that's not correct. Peter wasn't a successor he was a representative. Remember "physical presence"? Christ is physically in Heaven and so He appoint physical representatives to act in His physical absence. This the point of the Church. We are not just the saved but the minsters to the world as well. Why? Because is not physically here. It is our job to be his hands and feet. Likewise it was the Apostles' job to be the physical leadership while our Lord is physically absent.

Death is not necessary and actually if Christ were dead representation would be impossible as you can't represent a person who doesn't exist anymore.

That's why the Order of Melchizedek is successive.

The rest of your points are irrelevant at the point and I don't think we'll get anywhere if we keep jumping from thought to thought. We are no longer arguing whether or not the priesthood is of Levi because we can agree that it is of Melchizedek. We are no longer arguing representation because we agree that representation was indeed what the Apostles were. We are no longer arguing for St. Peter's leadership because we agree that he was in fact the leader of the Apostles.

No we are arguing succession. This is the point now. Apart from Matthias selection in Acts, which seems to me more than conclusive, you now have other evidence supporting succession to address.

God Bless

This is what you are saying:

- Peter WAS NOT a successor he was a representative
- Pope Francis IS the successor of St. Peter

So is there succession or is there no succession?

[LightHammer]

I am afraid that you are mixing up some things.
See, leadership and succession are two different things.

AVZ you're really messing with me here. I am writing clearly in English and you are interpreting it like its written in another language. I never once confused leadership with succession. In point of fact I said "the current Pope Francis as the successor of St. Peter inherits his (St. Peter's) leadership."

You quoted this from me in yet you make the accusation above. I am not equating the two succession and leadership. I said that that one (leadership) comes to us today through the continued act of the other (succession). Basically the Pope is Head Bishop In Charge because he succeeds St. Peter who was the Head Apostle In Charge. 

Peter could only be a successor if Jesus was dead...but He is not. He is alive.
That's why the order of Melchizedek is not one of succession.

No that's not correct. Peter wasn't a successor he was a representative. Remember "physical presence"? Christ is physically in Heaven and so He appoint physical representatives to act in His physical absence. This the point of the Church. We are not just the saved but the minsters to the world as well. Why? Because is not physically here. It is our job to be his hands and feet. Likewise it was the Apostles' job to be the physical leadership while our Lord is physically absent.

Death is not necessary and actually if Christ were dead representation would be impossible as you can't represent a person who doesn't exist anymore.

That's why the Order of Melchizedek is successive.

The rest of your points are irrelevant at the point and I don't think we'll get anywhere if we keep jumping from thought to thought. We are no longer arguing whether or not the priesthood is of Levi because we can agree that it is of Melchizedek. We are no longer arguing representation because we agree that representation was indeed what the Apostles were. We are no longer arguing for St. Peter's leadership because we agree that he was in fact the leader of the Apostles.

No we are arguing succession. This is the point now. Apart from Matthias selection in Acts, which seems to me more than conclusive, you now have other evidence supporting succession to address.

God Bless

This is what you are saying:

- Peter WAS NOT a successor he was a representative
- Pope Francis IS the successor of St. Peter

So is there succession or is there no succession?

The bishops are the successors of the Apostles and the Pope is the successor of the Apostle Peter. The Apostles were the representatives of Christ in Heaven therefore the apostolic successors are the representatives of Christ in Heaven.

[winsome]

This shows the blatant dishonesty of your style of posting. No-one is missing Peter's declaration that Jesus is the Christ but the subject of this thread is "Does the scriptures support Papal Infallibility?" not "Is Jesus the Christ?"

So you can admit the context of Matt 16 is "all" about the powerful Gospel of God being the Good news of the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ.  This divine message is the foundation of the Church and not Peter.

Clarity,

I will admit no such thing because it would not be true

Jesus set the agenda for the discussion by asking the apostles "Who do men say that the Son of man is?". Therefore Peter's response is very important also.

But Jesus also set the agenda by doing this at Caesarea Phillipi, which also makes his response to Peter very important.

Now you descend to insults by calling us Romanists!
Concise Oxford English Dictionary
Romanist
n   noun
1   an expert in or student of Roman antiquities or law, or of the Romance languages.
2   chiefly derogatory a member or supporter of the Roman Catholic Church.

Your doctrine originated out of Vatican / Roman councils and you have used the term Roman Catholic for well over 300 years?  If you would prefer RCC or Roman Catholic I can certainly accommodate.   

The term Roman Catholic was first coined by the Reformers as an insut to Catholics.

The correct (short) title for the Catholic Church is just that – Catholic Church

The Catechism is the Catechism of the Catholic Church

If you look at the documents of Vatican II or Papal documents you will not find the term Catholic Church.

The term "Roman" can rightly be applied to the Latin or Roman Rite, as opposed to the Malibar or Syriac Rite etc..

Romanist and Popery particulary are derogatory terms.

1. There is no difference in the Greek of NT times between petros and petra.

It is remarkable how far one will go to defend Church dogma.  This is precisely the intellectual honesty I have been speaking about with you and LM.

Not only do you resist speaking about the primary context of Matt 16 you now wish to deny that two Greek words though closely related actually are identical in meaning.

Petros

Peter = "a rock or a stone"

Petra

) a rock, cliff or ledge

a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground

b) a rock, a large stone

c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul

This was from Blue Letter taken from Thayers Lexicon.

Can you honestly with a clear conscience state there is absolutely no difference between these words and how the Lord Jesus Christ used them.

You would ignore the article in Greek?

What is true; what you cannot deny is the Master used two different words.

Now the question is, on which of the two, petros or petra, did Christ establish His church? Was it on petros, a movable stone, or petra, an immovable rock?

I find this quiet absurd that your teaching is so difficult to prove; so tenuous that your church is establish in one word within one verse in all Scripture and that word is misunderstood.

Imagine the realisation of this when its reveal with Power? 

Clarity

Clarity,

We don't strictly know whether Jesus was speaking Aramaic or Greek in Mtt 16.

It seems quite likely that the original of Matthew's gospel was in Aramaic and was thereafter translated. The point is that Jesus was making a pun but could hardly use Petra, a feminine name for Peter. We do know however from John 1:14 that Jesus renames Simon as Kepha which means a big rock.

We also know that petra and petros meant the same in Greek at that time.

Many Protestant scholars accept this. Here are some examples which I quote from an article The Rock of Christ by Phil Porvaznik.

D.A. Carson (Protestant Evangelical) --
"Although it is true that petros and petra can mean 'stone' and 'rock' respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover, the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses ('you are kepha' and 'on this kepha'), since the word was used both for a name and for a 'rock.' The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name." (Carson, The Expositor's Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1984], volume 8, page 368, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 17-18)

Oscar Cullmann (Lutheran) from Kittel's Greek standard Theological Dictionary of the New Testament --
"The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words. On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and petros: petra = Kepha = petros....Since Peter, the rock of the Church, is thus given by Christ Himself, the master of the house (Is. 22:22; Rev. 3:7), the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he is the human mediator of the resurrection, and he has the task of admitting the people of God into the kingdom of the resurrection...The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story...For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of 'thou art Rock' and 'on this rock I will build' shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom He has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected." (Cullmann, article on "Rock" (petros, petra) trans. and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [Eerdmans Publishing, 1968], volume 6, page 98, 107, 108)

Craig S. Keener (Protestant Evangelical) --
"'You are Peter,' Jesus says (16:18), paralleling Peter's 'You are the Christ' (16:16). He then plays on Simon's nickname, 'Peter,' which is roughly the English 'Rocky': Peter is 'rocky,' and on this rock Jesus would build his church (16:18)....Protestants...have sometimes argued that Peter's name in Greek (petros) differs from the Greek term for rock used here (petra)....But by Jesus' day the terms were usually interchangeable, and the original Aramaic form of Peter's nickname that Jesus probably used (kephas) means simply 'rock.' Further, Jesus does not say, 'You are Peter, but on this rock I will build my church'....the copulative kai almost always means 'and'.... Jesus' teaching is the ultimate foundation for disciples (7:24-27; cf. 1 Cor 3:11), but here Peter functions as the foundation rock as the apostles and prophets do in Ephesians 2:20-21....Jesus does not simply assign this role arbitrarily to Peter, however; Peter is the 'rock' because he is the one who confessed Jesus as the Christ in this context (16:15-16)...." (Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [Eerdmans, 1999], page 426-427)

Do you want any more?

Winsome

Is this a moveable rock your church is established upon?

But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man."
(Mat 16:23)

Peter was learning and being formed by Jesus
"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." (Lk 22:31-32)

Them after his resurrection:
Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep". (Jn 21:15-17)

Then after Pentecost:
But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, ........ Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:14-38)

Do you see how Jesus grows Peter into his role of being the Rock.

Move on to Acts 9 and the death of the widow Dorcas.

"But Peter put them all outside and knelt down and prayed; then turning to the body he said, "Tabitha, rise." And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up. And he gave her his hand and lifted her up." (vs 40 & 41)

Compare that to
"But he [Jesus] put them all outside, and took the child's father and mother and those who were with him, and went in where the child was. Taking her by the hand he said to her, "Talitha cumi"; which means, "Little girl, I say to you, arise." And immediately the girl got up and walked" (Mk 5:40-42)

Interesting comparison?

You see Clarity, you need to get the whole sequence of events in the Bible not just focus on one little snippet. You will learn a lot that way.

Can you not see how Christ used Petros and Petra?

Or is the Petra

Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Mat 16:16)

Tell us Winsome - which is the stronger foundation to build a church on.

Clarity

Yes, I can see how Jesus used Petros and Petra. It's a pity you cannot.

As to the foundation of the Church, what does the Bible say?

It says it is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone" (Eph 2:20)

Nowhere does it say it is built on anyone's profession of faith.

[winsome]

Why should we not discuss it – it is highly relevant.

I discussed later as you will see

Another thing you are going to discuss later  - but don't ?

- his name fits well in the context of Peters unstable example in Matt 16.


Hard for you to deny this Winesome.

Very easy to deny as you present no case.

Yes, Jesus is the Rock referred to in those passages. But remember that Jesus being a rock is a metaphor. Jesus is not literally a Rock. He is both God and man but not literally a Rock.

Peter is not literally a Rock either. He is a man.

One is unstable the other is stable - this also you cannot deny.

Your comment makes no sense and no evidence is provided

Now do you understand?

No because your comments make no sense and no evidence is provided.

Here is the truth concerning Peter and Rock

You mean here is your opinion

As you can see they "always" fall on Peter's name and emphasize how in John 1:42 Jesus gave the name "Rock" (Petros) to Simon. The issue for the Romanist is in Matt. 16:18 the Greek is: "Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build my Church."  We have two different Greek words being employed with two different connotations:

◾petros (masc.), detached stone 
◾petra (fem.), living rock, solid rock.

Unlike LH and Winsome who refuse to discuss the contextual lessons of Matt 16, "we" can consider the language and use of Peter and his name. 

If, as they say Peter is the very foundation of the Church we would expect to see this single word "petros" repeated in the text.

"Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build my Church."

"Petros", teaches LH and Winsome of Peter's instability and not the unmoveable foundation which they believe him to be and later in the CONTEXT was proven to be .See Matt. 16:22-23 however "petra" indicates the immovable rock-like character of Christ, or the confession of Peter, "thou art the Christ"

Jesus did NOT give Peter the name of Petros and scripture quite clearly contradicts you claim on this.

Jesus gave Simon the Aramaic name of Kephas.

I have already explained this.

No I am not

Yes you are forcing an inference upon the text rather than honouring the Greek meaning of Petra and Petros. You are also not speaking to the context of the section of Scripture.

I am understanding the meaning of the Greek as well as the meaning of what Jesus renamed Peter - Kephas

We can compare verse with verse if they are relevant. But there is a lot more to understanding scripture than such comparisons. Just doing that is the sort of exegesis that leads to nonsense.

So by this you are saying the verses I quoted to prove Christ is the Rock and Foundation of the Church is nonsense? Your point is mute as I have not cross-referenced Scripture incorrectly - I know this because you have no evidence to present.

Both I and LH have explained this to you but you are ignoring what we say.

We need to examine the context, both the immediate context and the whole context of the Bible.

You say this but yet to show a true contextual understanding of Matt 16.

But we are not getting that from you.

For example what is the context of Jesus' statement to Peter "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,....." ?

There is the immediate context of the exchange
Peter defines who Jesus is "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.", a definition we still use today.

Very good - you have shown forth the rock (Petra) not Petros of the Church.  Peter is not what the Church is built on - now this is nonsense.

Peter is the rock the Church is built on.

Jesus said it and I believe it.

Why don't you believe Jesus?

In response Jesus defines who Peter is - He is Rock, and furthermore the rock on which Jesus will build his Church.

No he makes a play on words to show the opposite - Peter you are a mveable Rock as you will prove shortly - no the Petra is the revelation with God has given you - this will be the foundation of the Church.

Why would Jesus make such a silly negative point like that. There would be mo reason.

Then there is the context of the place where they are – Caesarea Phillipi
Caesarea Philippi is at the far north of Israel, a long way, probably 3 days walking from Capernaum. In Matthew's gospel this incident is the only one reported at Caesarea Philippi so this exchange seems to have been the main purpose of his visit.

At Caesarea Phillipi where there is a massive cliff face (rock). Into this is built a shrine for the pagan God Pan (the original name for Caesarea Phillipi was Panias). This was the contrast the Jesus was making also.

Then there is the context of Jesus' earlier change of name from Simon to Kephas (Rock).

While the context of the location does speak to the events, we want you to acknowledge the foundation message of the Church is not Popery, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ established upon the Rock like message given by God through Peter. 

I cannot acknowledge that because you are wrong. Jesus' reference to Rock was to Peter not some "Rock like" message.

More insults:
Concise Oxford English Dictionary
popery
n    noun derogatory, chiefly archaic Roman Catholicism.

It's nothing to do with my honesty.

Demanding that I provide evidence from a particular part of God's word is a piece of dishonesty on your part and a piece of arrogance.

Its arrogance because you cannot produce the evidence so your retort is to act offended...I get this, but we want honesty.

Physician heal thyself!

No new argument here Winsome.  Although I do perceive you are "sensitive" to titles such as Popery to mean "The doctrines, practices, and rituals of the Roman Catholic Church".

Your sensitivity is noted. 

No answers to all my points'

I note you are going to avoid being derogatory in future.  Excellent!

[Clarity]

Yes, Peter has learnt modesty. But that does not mean he is not the leader.

All the Apostles are leaders Winsome - but Papal Infallibility and succession 

Peter was the leader of the apostles. The testimony of scriptures and that of the early Fathers is very clear on that.

The testimony of scriptures and that of the early Fathers clearly indicates that Peter was the leader.

The ECF's where full to the brim with Platonic teaching and this is clearly proven from history.

Clarity

Apart from your statement being untrue it has no bearing on their testimony that Peter was considered the leader of the apostles and therefore of the Church.

You say he is a leader of the apostles and yet Paul was the same to Timothy and Barnabas.  We are not discussing Apostles "eldership" but all the other Church dogma's you are trying to defend.  When will we see not only relevant Scripture but relevant context for that Scripture?

This is not unreasonable of me to ask Winsome.

[Clarity]

Why should we not discuss it – it is highly relevant.

I discussed later as you will see

Another thing you are going to discuss later  - but don't ?

- his name fits well in the context of Peters unstable example in Matt 16.


Hard for you to deny this Winesome.

Very easy to deny as you present no case.

Yes, Jesus is the Rock referred to in those passages. But remember that Jesus being a rock is a metaphor. Jesus is not literally a Rock. He is both God and man but not literally a Rock.

Peter is not literally a Rock either. He is a man.

One is unstable the other is stable - this also you cannot deny.

Your comment makes no sense and no evidence is provided

Now do you understand?

No because your comments make no sense and no evidence is provided.

Here is the truth concerning Peter and Rock

You mean here is your opinion

As you can see they "always" fall on Peter's name and emphasize how in John 1:42 Jesus gave the name "Rock" (Petros) to Simon. The issue for the Romanist is in Matt. 16:18 the Greek is: "Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build my Church."  We have two different Greek words being employed with two different connotations:

◾petros (masc.), detached stone 
◾petra (fem.), living rock, solid rock.

Unlike LH and Winsome who refuse to discuss the contextual lessons of Matt 16, "we" can consider the language and use of Peter and his name. 

If, as they say Peter is the very foundation of the Church we would expect to see this single word "petros" repeated in the text.

"Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build my Church."

"Petros", teaches LH and Winsome of Peter's instability and not the unmoveable foundation which they believe him to be and later in the CONTEXT was proven to be .See Matt. 16:22-23 however "petra" indicates the immovable rock-like character of Christ, or the confession of Peter, "thou art the Christ"

Jesus did NOT give Peter the name of Petros and scripture quite clearly contradicts you claim on this.

Jesus gave Simon the Aramaic name of Kephas.

I have already explained this.

No I am not

Yes you are forcing an inference upon the text rather than honouring the Greek meaning of Petra and Petros. You are also not speaking to the context of the section of Scripture.

I am understanding the meaning of the Greek as well as the meaning of what Jesus renamed Peter - Kephas

We can compare verse with verse if they are relevant. But there is a lot more to understanding scripture than such comparisons. Just doing that is the sort of exegesis that leads to nonsense.

So by this you are saying the verses I quoted to prove Christ is the Rock and Foundation of the Church is nonsense? Your point is mute as I have not cross-referenced Scripture incorrectly - I know this because you have no evidence to present.

Both I and LH have explained this to you but you are ignoring what we say.

We need to examine the context, both the immediate context and the whole context of the Bible.

You say this but yet to show a true contextual understanding of Matt 16.

But we are not getting that from you.

For example what is the context of Jesus' statement to Peter "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,....." ?

There is the immediate context of the exchange
Peter defines who Jesus is "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.", a definition we still use today.

Very good - you have shown forth the rock (Petra) not Petros of the Church.  Peter is not what the Church is built on - now this is nonsense.

Peter is the rock the Church is built on.

Jesus said it and I believe it.

Why don't you believe Jesus?

In response Jesus defines who Peter is - He is Rock, and furthermore the rock on which Jesus will build his Church.

No he makes a play on words to show the opposite - Peter you are a mveable Rock as you will prove shortly - no the Petra is the revelation with God has given you - this will be the foundation of the Church.

Why would Jesus make such a silly negative point like that. There would be mo reason.

Then there is the context of the place where they are – Caesarea Phillipi
Caesarea Philippi is at the far north of Israel, a long way, probably 3 days walking from Capernaum. In Matthew's gospel this incident is the only one reported at Caesarea Philippi so this exchange seems to have been the main purpose of his visit.

At Caesarea Phillipi where there is a massive cliff face (rock). Into this is built a shrine for the pagan God Pan (the original name for Caesarea Phillipi was Panias). This was the contrast the Jesus was making also.

Then there is the context of Jesus' earlier change of name from Simon to Kephas (Rock).

While the context of the location does speak to the events, we want you to acknowledge the foundation message of the Church is not Popery, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ established upon the Rock like message given by God through Peter. 

I cannot acknowledge that because you are wrong. Jesus' reference to Rock was to Peter not some "Rock like" message.

More insults:
Concise Oxford English Dictionary
popery
n    noun derogatory, chiefly archaic Roman Catholicism.

It's nothing to do with my honesty.

Demanding that I provide evidence from a particular part of God's word is a piece of dishonesty on your part and a piece of arrogance.

Its arrogance because you cannot produce the evidence so your retort is to act offended...I get this, but we want honesty.

Physician heal thyself!

No new argument here Winsome.  Although I do perceive you are "sensitive" to titles such as Popery to mean "The doctrines, practices, and rituals of the Roman Catholic Church".

Your sensitivity is noted. 

No answers to all my points'

I note you are going to avoid being derogatory in future.  Excellent!

Winsome, you didn't provide anything of relevance to the subject - no new thing has been presented. 

So far the truth still stands concerning Matt 16.

1. The "message" is the Rock - "Thou art the Christ"
2. Jesus played on two Greek words to show how Peter's instability (Matt 16:22) would not be the Rock but the petra is Christ.
3. Jesus strictly warned the disciple not to tell anyone about this revelation of Jesus being the Christ.

Where is the Papal succession and where is Papal Infallibly taught? It nots in Matt 16

[Clarity]

Peter was learning and being formed by Jesus
"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." (Lk 22:31-32)

As were all the Apostles.

Them after his resurrection:
Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep". (Jn 21:15-17)

Nothing here to suggest a Papal system.

Then after Pentecost:
But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, ........ Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:14-38)

Not here also - its wearing thin Winsome - Do you actually have Scripture to support the OP?

You are not even linking this passages with your beliefs - again nothing new!

Do you see how Jesus grows Peter into his role of being the Rock.

They are all living stones Winsome.

Jesus Christ is the foundation

For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
(1Co 3:11)

Jesus Christ being the Chief corner stone laid upon the single foundation and then the living stones set along side Christ to make a straight wall of set stones.

No stone other than the chief corner stone and the foundation is more important than Christ nor is any other living stone more important or is given greater authority than Jesus Christ.

you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
(1Pe 2:5)

Move on to Acts 9 and the death of the widow Dorcas.

"But Peter put them all outside and knelt down and prayed; then turning to the body he said, "Tabitha, rise." And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up. And he gave her his hand and lifted her up." (vs 40 & 41)

Compare that to
"But he [Jesus] put them all outside, and took the child's father and mother and those who were with him, and went in where the child was. Taking her by the hand he said to her, "Talitha cumi"; which means, "Little girl, I say to you, arise." And immediately the girl got up and walked" (Mk 5:40-42)

Interesting comparison?

You say interesting Winsome but I could do the same of Paul - Timothy and many others.

I am sorry Winsome but you need to see this from my perspective and your arguments are terrible.

I would prefer you to say "The Church has made it all up and is one big lie built upon a myriad of lies".

That's what it looks like from this side of the screen.

You see Clarity, you need to get the whole sequence of events in the Bible not just focus on one little snippet. You will learn a lot that way.

Yes, I can see how Jesus used Petros and Petra. It's a pity you cannot.

As to the foundation of the Church, what does the Bible say?

It says it is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone" (Eph 2:20)

Nowhere does it say it is built on anyone's profession of faith.

Then you take us to a verse which combines all the Apostles and Prophets to make your point 

Winsome - stop and take a breather...regain your thoughts about precisely what it is you are trying to prove.

Start a new post and leave this mess behind you.

Better still why don't you take me to Peter's Epistles and teach me Papal Infallibility from them?

At least try.
Clarity

[winsome]

Yes, Peter has learnt modesty. But that does not mean he is not the leader.

All the Apostles are leaders Winsome - but Papal Infallibility and succession 

Peter was the leader of the apostles. The testimony of scriptures and that of the early Fathers is very clear on that.

The testimony of scriptures and that of the early Fathers clearly indicates that Peter was the leader.

The ECF's where full to the brim with Platonic teaching and this is clearly proven from history.

Clarity

Apart from your statement being untrue it has no bearing on their testimony that Peter was considered the leader of the apostles and therefore of the Church.

You say he is a leader of the apostles and yet Paul was the same to Timothy and Barnabas.  We are not discussing Apostles "eldership" but all the other Church dogma's you are trying to defend.  When will we see not only relevant Scripture but relevant context for that Scripture?

This is not unreasonable of me to ask Winsome.

Yes, there is a hierarchy in the Church.

[winsome]

Why should we not discuss it – it is highly relevant.

I discussed later as you will see

Another thing you are going to discuss later  - but don't ?

- his name fits well in the context of Peters unstable example in Matt 16.


Hard for you to deny this Winesome.

Very easy to deny as you present no case.

Yes, Jesus is the Rock referred to in those passages. But remember that Jesus being a rock is a metaphor. Jesus is not literally a Rock. He is both God and man but not literally a Rock.

Peter is not literally a Rock either. He is a man.

One is unstable the other is stable - this also you cannot deny.

Your comment makes no sense and no evidence is provided

Now do you understand?

No because your comments make no sense and no evidence is provided.

Here is the truth concerning Peter and Rock

You mean here is your opinion

As you can see they "always" fall on Peter's name and emphasize how in John 1:42 Jesus gave the name "Rock" (Petros) to Simon. The issue for the Romanist is in Matt. 16:18 the Greek is: "Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build my Church."  We have two different Greek words being employed with two different connotations:

◾petros (masc.), detached stone 
◾petra (fem.), living rock, solid rock.

Unlike LH and Winsome who refuse to discuss the contextual lessons of Matt 16, "we" can consider the language and use of Peter and his name. 

If, as they say Peter is the very foundation of the Church we would expect to see this single word "petros" repeated in the text.

"Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build my Church."

"Petros", teaches LH and Winsome of Peter's instability and not the unmoveable foundation which they believe him to be and later in the CONTEXT was proven to be .See Matt. 16:22-23 however "petra" indicates the immovable rock-like character of Christ, or the confession of Peter, "thou art the Christ"

Jesus did NOT give Peter the name of Petros and scripture quite clearly contradicts you claim on this.

Jesus gave Simon the Aramaic name of Kephas.

I have already explained this.

No I am not

Yes you are forcing an inference upon the text rather than honouring the Greek meaning of Petra and Petros. You are also not speaking to the context of the section of Scripture.

I am understanding the meaning of the Greek as well as the meaning of what Jesus renamed Peter - Kephas

We can compare verse with verse if they are relevant. But there is a lot more to understanding scripture than such comparisons. Just doing that is the sort of exegesis that leads to nonsense.

So by this you are saying the verses I quoted to prove Christ is the Rock and Foundation of the Church is nonsense? Your point is mute as I have not cross-referenced Scripture incorrectly - I know this because you have no evidence to present.

Both I and LH have explained this to you but you are ignoring what we say.

We need to examine the context, both the immediate context and the whole context of the Bible.

You say this but yet to show a true contextual understanding of Matt 16.

But we are not getting that from you.

For example what is the context of Jesus' statement to Peter "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,....." ?

There is the immediate context of the exchange
Peter defines who Jesus is "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.", a definition we still use today.

Very good - you have shown forth the rock (Petra) not Petros of the Church.  Peter is not what the Church is built on - now this is nonsense.

Peter is the rock the Church is built on.

Jesus said it and I believe it.

Why don't you believe Jesus?

In response Jesus defines who Peter is - He is Rock, and furthermore the rock on which Jesus will build his Church.

No he makes a play on words to show the opposite - Peter you are a mveable Rock as you will prove shortly - no the Petra is the revelation with God has given you - this will be the foundation of the Church.

Why would Jesus make such a silly negative point like that. There would be mo reason.

Then there is the context of the place where they are – Caesarea Phillipi
Caesarea Philippi is at the far north of Israel, a long way, probably 3 days walking from Capernaum. In Matthew's gospel this incident is the only one reported at Caesarea Philippi so this exchange seems to have been the main purpose of his visit.

At Caesarea Phillipi where there is a massive cliff face (rock). Into this is built a shrine for the pagan God Pan (the original name for Caesarea Phillipi was Panias). This was the contrast the Jesus was making also.

Then there is the context of Jesus' earlier change of name from Simon to Kephas (Rock).

While the context of the location does speak to the events, we want you to acknowledge the foundation message of the Church is not Popery, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ established upon the Rock like message given by God through Peter. 

I cannot acknowledge that because you are wrong. Jesus' reference to Rock was to Peter not some "Rock like" message.

More insults:
Concise Oxford English Dictionary
popery
n    noun derogatory, chiefly archaic Roman Catholicism.

It's nothing to do with my honesty.

Demanding that I provide evidence from a particular part of God's word is a piece of dishonesty on your part and a piece of arrogance.

Its arrogance because you cannot produce the evidence so your retort is to act offended...I get this, but we want honesty.

Physician heal thyself!

No new argument here Winsome.  Although I do perceive you are "sensitive" to titles such as Popery to mean "The doctrines, practices, and rituals of the Roman Catholic Church".

Your sensitivity is noted. 

No answers to all my points'

I note you are going to avoid being derogatory in future.  Excellent!

Winsome, you didn't provide anything of relevance to the subject - no new thing has been presented. 

So far the truth still stands concerning Matt 16.

1. The "message" is the Rock - "Thou art the Christ"
2. Jesus played on two Greek words to show how Peter's instability (Matt 16:22) would not be the Rock but the petra is Christ.
3. Jesus strictly warned the disciple not to tell anyone about this revelation of Jesus being the Christ.

Where is the Papal succession and where is Papal Infallibly taught? It nots in Matt 16

You are wrong about Mt 16 and have been shown to be wrong.

[winsome]

Peter was learning and being formed by Jesus
"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." (Lk 22:31-32)

As were all the Apostles.

Them after his resurrection:
Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep". (Jn 21:15-17)

Nothing here to suggest a Papal system.

Then after Pentecost:
But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, ........ Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:14-38)

Not here also - its wearing thin Winsome - Do you actually have Scripture to support the OP?

You are not even linking this passages with your beliefs - again nothing new!

Do you see how Jesus grows Peter into his role of being the Rock.

They are all living stones Winsome.

Jesus Christ is the foundation

For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
(1Co 3:11)

Jesus Christ being the Chief corner stone laid upon the single foundation and then the living stones set along side Christ to make a straight wall of set stones.

No stone other than the chief corner stone and the foundation is more important than Christ nor is any other living stone more important or is given greater authority than Jesus Christ.

you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
(1Pe 2:5)

Move on to Acts 9 and the death of the widow Dorcas.

"But Peter put them all outside and knelt down and prayed; then turning to the body he said, "Tabitha, rise." And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up. And he gave her his hand and lifted her up." (vs 40 & 41)

Compare that to
"But he [Jesus] put them all outside, and took the child's father and mother and those who were with him, and went in where the child was. Taking her by the hand he said to her, "Talitha cumi"; which means, "Little girl, I say to you, arise." And immediately the girl got up and walked" (Mk 5:40-42)

Interesting comparison?

You say interesting Winsome but I could do the same of Paul - Timothy and many others.

I am sorry Winsome but you need to see this from my perspective and your arguments are terrible.

I would prefer you to say "The Church has made it all up and is one big lie built upon a myriad of lies".

That's what it looks like from this side of the screen.

You see Clarity, you need to get the whole sequence of events in the Bible not just focus on one little snippet. You will learn a lot that way.

Yes, I can see how Jesus used Petros and Petra. It's a pity you cannot.

As to the foundation of the Church, what does the Bible say?

It says it is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone" (Eph 2:20)

Nowhere does it say it is built on anyone's profession of faith.

Then you take us to a verse which combines all the Apostles and Prophets to make your point 

Winsome - stop and take a breather...regain your thoughts about precisely what it is you are trying to prove.

Start a new post and leave this mess behind you.

Better still why don't you take me to Peter's Epistles and teach me Papal Infallibility from them?

At least try.
Clarity

You are saying nothing new and just avoiding points presented - and being very patronising about it as well.

I see little point in continuing unless you are actually going to engage in the arguments presented rather than dismiss them out of hand.

[mclees8]

You see Clarity, you need to get the whole sequence of events in the Bible not just focus on one little snippet. You will learn a lot that way.

Yes, I can see how Jesus used Petros and Petra. It's a pity you cannot.

As to the foundation of the Church, what does the Bible say?

It says it is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone" (Eph 2:20)

Nowhere does it say it is built on anyone's profession of faith.


You are minimizing the church. You are both correct.  It does not say the church is built on a confession of faith, yet with out that confession Christ died in vain and the church would not exist and niether would we even have the apostles to be witnesses of our salvation.

[AVZ]

I am afraid that you are mixing up some things.
See, leadership and succession are two different things.

AVZ you're really messing with me here. I am writing clearly in English and you are interpreting it like its written in another language. I never once confused leadership with succession. In point of fact I said "the current Pope Francis as the successor of St. Peter inherits his (St. Peter's) leadership."

You quoted this from me in yet you make the accusation above. I am not equating the two succession and leadership. I said that that one (leadership) comes to us today through the continued act of the other (succession). Basically the Pope is Head Bishop In Charge because he succeeds St. Peter who was the Head Apostle In Charge. 

Peter could only be a successor if Jesus was dead...but He is not. He is alive.
That's why the order of Melchizedek is not one of succession.

No that's not correct. Peter wasn't a successor he was a representative. Remember "physical presence"? Christ is physically in Heaven and so He appoint physical representatives to act in His physical absence. This the point of the Church. We are not just the saved but the minsters to the world as well. Why? Because is not physically here. It is our job to be his hands and feet. Likewise it was the Apostles' job to be the physical leadership while our Lord is physically absent.

Death is not necessary and actually if Christ were dead representation would be impossible as you can't represent a person who doesn't exist anymore.

That's why the Order of Melchizedek is successive.

The rest of your points are irrelevant at the point and I don't think we'll get anywhere if we keep jumping from thought to thought. We are no longer arguing whether or not the priesthood is of Levi because we can agree that it is of Melchizedek. We are no longer arguing representation because we agree that representation was indeed what the Apostles were. We are no longer arguing for St. Peter's leadership because we agree that he was in fact the leader of the Apostles.

No we are arguing succession. This is the point now. Apart from Matthias selection in Acts, which seems to me more than conclusive, you now have other evidence supporting succession to address.

God Bless

This is what you are saying:

- Peter WAS NOT a successor he was a representative
- Pope Francis IS the successor of St. Peter

So is there succession or is there no succession?

The bishops are the successors of the Apostles and the Pope is the successor of the Apostle Peter. The Apostles were the representatives of Christ in Heaven therefore the apostolic successors are the representatives of Christ in Heaven.

First let me state that I do not agree that Peter was the leader of the Apostles.
What I mean to say is that indeed Peter did hold a special position, but he was not a leader as in that the other Apostles did have to submit to him.
I do not find any references or commands in the scriptures that point towards such a claim.

There are some points that I made that you circumvent.

The matter of the Holy Spirit.
As is clear from your argument, the Holy Spirit is not part of succession.
The scriptures state that the Holy Spirit was given to the representatives, all at the same time (Paul later)
So not only Peter had the authority to speak from the Holy Spirit, all the Apostles could.
All the Apostles therefore could proclaim truth through the Holy Spirit, and all could therefore explain scripture.
The RCC however claims to have exclusive right to interprete the Holy Spirit...that is not what the Bible states.

The matter of infallibility.
As I stated, and I was actually hoping you would show me wrong, throughout history God had appointed many "representatives".
All of these men however were merely men and made mistakes.
What makes the RCC think that these mistakes are not present in their leaders?
And as none of these leaders ever did claim that people to submit themselves to them, why does the RCC claim such a thing?

Peter wrote:
1 Peter 5:3
So as your fellow elder and a witness of Christ's sufferings and as one who shares in the glory that will be revealed, I urge the elders among you:  Give a shepherd's care to God's flock among you, exercising oversight not merely as a duty but willingly under God's direction, not for shameful profit but eagerly.
And do not lord it over those entrusted to you, but be examples to the flock.

The RCC however, does lord over people in the name of succession to Peter.
To me that contradicts itself.


See, I am not arguing leadership. The scriptures clearly state that leadership is required. We are arguing Leadership here.
An absolute exclusive and infallible position at the head of all believers. That, is not what the scriptures say or mean when it speaks about leadership.

The Apostles write to the believers:
"Test all things, and hold fast to what is good".

The apostles don't write to the believers, "Please ask Peter what to do", or "go to your leader and he will tell you what to do"...no, the Apostles ask each and every believers to personally test things and hold fast to the things that are good.
This is contrary to what the RCC teaches and I find that highly questionable.

See, the attributes the RCC claims due to succession from Peter (Holy Spirit, Infallibility) are not themselves products of succession.
As you stated, Peter was not a successor of Jesus.
In that case the attributes the RCC has been given, falls in line with the attributes ALL representatives have been given.
And since you and I both are representatives in this lineage, we both possess these attributes.

You too are a rock in the foundation on which the church is built and must be build further.
You too are given the Holy Spirit.
You too hold the keys of heaven.

Christ is alive, He is risen and He is among us. He will lead you to the truth and into His Kingdom.
Don't vest your trust on earthly princes and lineages, but vest your trust on the lineage with the one King and your Creator.

[Clarity]

Winsome.

Finally we conclude from all your points there is not a miniscule of historical evidence that Peter passed on any authority to anyone; further more there is no New Testament evidence at all that Christ commanded Peter to pass any authority.

This brings our discussion to a close; you cannot provide me one clear command of Christ.

You must conclude any "successors" of Peter must be considered as having taken authority to themselves, rather than having received it from Christ.

Clarity

[mclees8]

I am afraid that you are mixing up some things.
See, leadership and succession are two different things.

AVZ you're really messing with me here. I am writing clearly in English and you are interpreting it like its written in another language. I never once confused leadership with succession. In point of fact I said "the current Pope Francis as the successor of St. Peter inherits his (St. Peter's) leadership."

You quoted this from me in yet you make the accusation above. I am not equating the two succession and leadership. I said that that one (leadership) comes to us today through the continued act of the other (succession). Basically the Pope is Head Bishop In Charge because he succeeds St. Peter who was the Head Apostle In Charge. 

Peter could only be a successor if Jesus was dead...but He is not. He is alive.
That's why the order of Melchizedek is not one of succession.

No that's not correct. Peter wasn't a successor he was a representative. Remember "physical presence"? Christ is physically in Heaven and so He appoint physical representatives to act in His physical absence. This the point of the Church. We are not just the saved but the minsters to the world as well. Why? Because is not physically here. It is our job to be his hands and feet. Likewise it was the Apostles' job to be the physical leadership while our Lord is physically absent.

Death is not necessary and actually if Christ were dead representation would be impossible as you can't represent a person who doesn't exist anymore.

That's why the Order of Melchizedek is successive.

The rest of your points are irrelevant at the point and I don't think we'll get anywhere if we keep jumping from thought to thought. We are no longer arguing whether or not the priesthood is of Levi because we can agree that it is of Melchizedek. We are no longer arguing representation because we agree that representation was indeed what the Apostles were. We are no longer arguing for St. Peter's leadership because we agree that he was in fact the leader of the Apostles.

No we are arguing succession. This is the point now. Apart from Matthias selection in Acts, which seems to me more than conclusive, you now have other evidence supporting succession to address.

God Bless

This is what you are saying:

- Peter WAS NOT a successor he was a representative
- Pope Francis IS the successor of St. Peter

So is there succession or is there no succession?

The bishops are the successors of the Apostles and the Pope is the successor of the Apostle Peter. The Apostles were the representatives of Christ in Heaven therefore the apostolic successors are the representatives of Christ in Heaven.

First let me state that I do not agree that Peter was the leader of the Apostles.
What I mean to say is that indeed Peter did hold a special position, but he was not a leader as in that the other Apostles did have to submit to him.
I do not find any references or commands in the scriptures that point towards such a claim.

There are some points that I made that you circumvent.

The matter of the Holy Spirit.
As is clear from your argument, the Holy Spirit is not part of succession.
The scriptures state that the Holy Spirit was given to the representatives, all at the same time (Paul later)
So not only Peter had the authority to speak from the Holy Spirit, all the Apostles could.
All the Apostles therefore could proclaim truth through the Holy Spirit, and all could therefore explain scripture.
The RCC however claims to have exclusive right to interprete the Holy Spirit...that is not what the Bible states.

The matter of infallibility.
As I stated, and I was actually hoping you would show me wrong, throughout history God had appointed many "representatives".
All of these men however were merely men and made mistakes.
What makes the RCC think that these mistakes are not present in their leaders?
And as none of these leaders ever did claim that people to submit themselves to them, why does the RCC claim such a thing?

Peter wrote:
1 Peter 5:3
So as your fellow elder and a witness of Christ's sufferings and as one who shares in the glory that will be revealed, I urge the elders among you:  Give a shepherd's care to God's flock among you, exercising oversight not merely as a duty but willingly under God's direction, not for shameful profit but eagerly.
And do not lord it over those entrusted to you, but be examples to the flock.

The RCC however, does lord over people in the name of succession to Peter.
To me that contradicts itself.


See, I am not arguing leadership. The scriptures clearly state that leadership is required. We are arguing Leadership here.
An absolute exclusive and infallible position at the head of all believers. That, is not what the scriptures say or mean when it speaks about leadership.

The Apostles write to the believers:
"Test all things, and hold fast to what is good".

The apostles don't write to the believers, "Please ask Peter what to do", or "go to your leader and he will tell you what to do"...no, the Apostles ask each and every believers to personally test things and hold fast to the things that are good.
This is contrary to what the RCC teaches and I find that highly questionable.

See, the attributes the RCC claims due to succession from Peter (Holy Spirit, Infallibility) are not themselves products of succession.
As you stated, Peter was not a successor of Jesus.
In that case the attributes the RCC has been given, falls in line with the attributes ALL representatives have been given.
And since you and I both are representatives in this lineage, we both possess these attributes.

You too are a rock in the foundation on which the church is built and must be build further.
You too are given the Holy Spirit.
You too hold the keys of heaven.

Christ is alive, He is risen and He is among us. He will lead you to the truth and into His Kingdom.
Don't vest your trust on earthly princes and lineages, but vest your trust on the lineage with the one King and your Creator.

[/b][/i]
Amen AVZ

[LightHammer]

First let me state that I do not agree that Peter was the leader of the Apostles.
What I mean to say is that indeed Peter did hold a special position, but he was not a leader as in that the other Apostles did have to submit to him.
I do not find any references or commands in the scriptures that point towards such a claim.

If you don't accept St. Peter as leader of the Apostles then there's really nothing to talk about. However I think your concept of leader is probably why you refuse to refer to St. Peter.

Alas I digress.

The matter of the Holy Spirit.
As is clear from your argument, the Holy Spirit is not part of succession.
The scriptures state that the Holy Spirit was given to the representatives, all at the same time (Paul later)
So not only Peter had the authority to speak from the Holy Spirit, all the Apostles could.
All the Apostles therefore could proclaim truth through the Holy Spirit, and all could therefore explain scripture.
The RCC however claims to have exclusive right to interprete the Holy Spirit...that is not what the Bible states.

This argument is incoherent and irrelevant to my points. The Holy Spirit is not apart of the succession? Well no we all receiveand are sealed by the Holy Spirit through Baptism and Confirmation so no apostolic succession does not impart a person with the Holy Spirit.

However the Holy Spirit is the one who empowers the office that Son built while He was here on earth; that office being the apostolic ministry (bishop, priest and deacons) If you check with not only the Catholic Church but the Orthodox and  all the churches who have valid succession from the Apostles the birth day of the priesthood is on the Day of Pentecost. This is when God by His Spirit breathed life into the holy priesthood.

If you haven't noticed yet this pattern is completely congruent with how created mankind. First the Son(Word) formed the body of Adam and then the Spirit of Life animated him. In a similar manner the Church God's new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17) was likewise formed first by the Son and given new life by the Holy Spirit.

What does all this mean? What is my point? The point is that the Holy Spirit permeates the office of the priesthood. Of Christ through the Holy Spirit for the glory of the Father. The priesthood itself is endowed by God.

So yes in that way your weird statement has its contextual appeasement.

The matter of infallibility.
As I stated, and I was actually hoping you would show me wrong, throughout history God had appointed many "representatives".
All of these men however were merely men and made mistakes.
What makes the RCC think that these mistakes are not present in their leaders?
And as none of these leaders ever did claim that people to submit themselves to them, why does the RCC claim such a thing?

You aren't making sense.

1. Every man I listened was either a King, a General or a Prophet all of whom the people submitted to as God's earthly authority.

2. You are mistaking the Catholic position infallibility does not mean impeccability. Its not that the Pope can't make personal mistakes. That has nothing to do with infallibility.

The RCC however, does lord over people in the name of succession to Peter.
To me that contradicts itself.

I don't think we lord it over anyone. I really see my priest as my dad in the faith. He brought me into the fullness of the Christian faith. Likewise I honestly see Pope Francis as my earthly sort of grandfather. I think you have a biased perspective.

We know who our leaders are and we respect that. There's no need for them to lord it over us or anyone. Those who feel like the church lords itself over them have historically been those who have denied the rightful leadership of the apostolic successors and used Christ as a scapegoat to formulate truth for themselves.

[AVZ]

First let me state that I do not agree that Peter was the leader of the Apostles.
What I mean to say is that indeed Peter did hold a special position, but he was not a leader as in that the other Apostles did have to submit to him.
I do not find any references or commands in the scriptures that point towards such a claim.

If you don't accept St. Peter as leader of the Apostles then there's really nothing to talk about. However I think your concept of leader is probably why you refuse to refer to St. Peter.

Alas I digress.

The matter of the Holy Spirit.
As is clear from your argument, the Holy Spirit is not part of succession.
The scriptures state that the Holy Spirit was given to the representatives, all at the same time (Paul later)
So not only Peter had the authority to speak from the Holy Spirit, all the Apostles could.
All the Apostles therefore could proclaim truth through the Holy Spirit, and all could therefore explain scripture.
The RCC however claims to have exclusive right to interprete the Holy Spirit...that is not what the Bible states.

This argument is incoherent and irrelevant to my points. The Holy Spirit is not apart of the succession? Well no we all receiveand are sealed by the Holy Spirit through Baptism and Confirmation so no apostolic succession does not impart a person with the Holy Spirit.

However the Holy Spirit is the one who empowers the office that Son built while He was here on earth; that office being the apostolic ministry (bishop, priest and deacons) If you check with not only the Catholic Church but the Orthodox and  all the churches who have valid succession from the Apostles the birth day of the priesthood is on the Day of Pentecost. This is when God by His Spirit breathed life into the holy priesthood.

If you haven't noticed yet this pattern is completely congruent with how created mankind. First the Son(Word) formed the body of Adam and then the Spirit of Life animated him. In a similar manner the Church God's new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17) was likewise formed first by the Son and given new life by the Holy Spirit.

What does all this mean? What is my point? The point is that the Holy Spirit permeates the office of the priesthood. Of Christ through the Holy Spirit for the glory of the Father. The priesthood itself is endowed by God.

So yes in that way your weird statement has its contextual appeasement.

The matter of infallibility.
As I stated, and I was actually hoping you would show me wrong, throughout history God had appointed many "representatives".
All of these men however were merely men and made mistakes.
What makes the RCC think that these mistakes are not present in their leaders?
And as none of these leaders ever did claim that people to submit themselves to them, why does the RCC claim such a thing?

You aren't making sense.

1. Every man I listened was either a King, a General or a Prophet all of whom the people submitted to as God's earthly authority.

2. You are mistaking the Catholic position infallibility does not mean impeccability. Its not that the Pope can't make personal mistakes. That has nothing to do with infallibility.

The RCC however, does lord over people in the name of succession to Peter.
To me that contradicts itself.

I don't think we lord it over anyone. I really see my priest as my dad in the faith. He brought me into the fullness of the Christian faith. Likewise I honestly see Pope Francis as my earthly sort of grandfather. I think you have a biased perspective.

We know who our leaders are and we respect that. There's no need for them to lord it over us or anyone. Those who feel like the church lords itself over them have historically been those who have denied the rightful leadership of the apostolic successors and used Christ as a scapegoat to formulate truth for themselves.

LH,

We do acknowledge that there is one Trinity...one Father, one Son, and one Holy Spirit.
To every creation the Father and the Son are the same...there is no lesser human creation, and grace is for each and every person the same.
Hence, the Holy Spirit, which is one works equally in each and every human being.
There is no higher Spirit or lower Spirit.

Peter was given the Holy Spirit at the exact same moment as all the other Apostles, and we are given the Holy Spirit at baptism.
This is the same Holy Spirit as your Pope received during his baptism many years ago.

Now the Holy Spirit works in every being that has received Him. In some people He works in this way, and in other He works in another way.
But, it is the same Holy Spirit, with the same capacity and the same power.

Peter did not receive the Holy Spirit through the order of Melchizedek. Hence, the Holy Spirit that Peter received is not passed on by inheritance to the Popes and all other clergy men.
That's why I say that the Holy Spirit is not part of succession.
I am sure it is clear now.

The RCC however claims differently. She claims that the Holy Spirit reveals higher things to her than to the common believer.
That simply is not true and you do not have scriptural reference that for example my priest has received a different (or lower) type of Holy Spirit than your Pope.
In fact, since my priest is part of the church, the Holy Spirit could possibly reveal more to him that to your Pope.
You know that is plausible because there have been many Popes and clergy men who showed us absolute absence of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit was not, as the RCC attempts to claim, in exclusive or increased quantity given to the leaders of the church.
The Holy Spirit was given to each individual in the same quantity and quality.
That's why the way you describe "leadership" in a different way as the rest of the world.

See, a leader is not by definition someone who is always right. A leader is a selected individual who represents the will of the people.
My priest (or pastor), is a leader...but he is not a monarch or dictator. He teaches us, but he does not tell us or commands us.

So different that is in the RCC. Sure the RCC lords over her followers, by command. It is the Holy See that dictates what is true and what is not.
The believers then are the "parrots" of the church repeating what has been told.
Is it not the RCC who commands "submission to the Pope"?
The word "submission" in itself shows that there is a situation of lordship and rule.

You most likely see or experience this differently, but that is because you do not allow (or are not allowed) to let the Holy Spirit work to the fullest in yourself.
Since you submit yourself to the Holy See, the Holy Spirit in you is submitted with you.

Your leadership does not contain a higher form of Holy Spirit. Same as they do not hold more grace, or salvation.

[AVZ]

If you haven't noticed yet this pattern is completely congruent with how created mankind. First the Son(Word) formed the body of Adam and then the Spirit of Life animated him. In a similar manner the Church God's new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17) was likewise formed first by the Son and given new life by the Holy Spirit.

If you haven't noticed yet this pattern is completely congruent with how created mankind. First the Son(Word) formed the body of Adam and then the Spirit of Life animated him. In a similar manner the Church God's new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17) was likewise formed first by the Son and given new life by the Holy Spirit.

What does all this mean? What is my point? The point is that the Holy Spirit permeates the office of the priesthood. Of Christ through the Holy Spirit for the glory of the Father. The priesthood itself is endowed by God. 

I am in disagreement with you here.
The Apostles Creed (acknowledging the Trinity) makes a clear distinction between the parts of the Trinity.

"I believe in God the Father, Creator of heaven and earth"
In this concept, the Son was not the Creator...the Father was.
Adam was a product of the Father, and life in Adam was the breath of the Father.

Life is 2 Corinthians has nothing to do with physical life...it is about spiritual life.
It is the life that we have received through the Son, through His offer on the cross.

I agree with you that you could make a comparison to the formation of the church and life being given through the Holy Spirit.

But then you make a sudden swing to priesthood, which is incorrect.
Priesthood is not mentioned in 2 Corinthians, and life as given by the Father was life given to all of His creation.
Hence, if you must make a comparison, similar to life being given to all of Gods creatures, the Holy Spirit is then given to all of Jesus followers...not an exclusive few.

[LightHammer]

If you haven't noticed yet this pattern is completely congruent with how created mankind. First the Son(Word) formed the body of Adam and then the Spirit of Life animated him. In a similar manner the Church God's new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17) was likewise formed first by the Son and given new life by the Holy Spirit.

If you haven't noticed yet this pattern is completely congruent with how created mankind. First the Son(Word) formed the body of Adam and then the Spirit of Life animated him. In a similar manner the Church God's new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17) was likewise formed first by the Son and given new life by the Holy Spirit.

What does all this mean? What is my point? The point is that the Holy Spirit permeates the office of the priesthood. Of Christ through the Holy Spirit for the glory of the Father. The priesthood itself is endowed by God. 

I am in disagreement with you here.
The Apostles Creed (acknowledging the Trinity) makes a clear distinction between the parts of the Trinity.

"I believe in God the Father, Creator of heaven and earth"
In this concept, the Son was not the Creator...the Father was.
Adam was a product of the Father, and life in Adam was the breath of the Father.

Life is 2 Corinthians has nothing to do with physical life...it is about spiritual life.
It is the life that we have received through the Son, through His offer on the cross.

I agree with you that you could make a comparison to the formation of the church and life being given through the Holy Spirit.

But then you make a sudden swing to priesthood, which is incorrect.
Priesthood is not mentioned in 2 Corinthians, and life as given by the Father was life given to all of His creation.
Hence, if you must make a comparison, similar to life being given to all of Gods creatures, the Holy Spirit is then given to all of Jesus followers...not an exclusive few.

Your view of the Trinity is heretical and I don't say that lightly. The Trinity is a salvation issue and we can't refer to this with kid gloves. I will return when I have more adequate time to address this properly.

[AVZ]

If you haven't noticed yet this pattern is completely congruent with how created mankind. First the Son(Word) formed the body of Adam and then the Spirit of Life animated him. In a similar manner the Church God's new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17) was likewise formed first by the Son and given new life by the Holy Spirit.

If you haven't noticed yet this pattern is completely congruent with how created mankind. First the Son(Word) formed the body of Adam and then the Spirit of Life animated him. In a similar manner the Church God's new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17) was likewise formed first by the Son and given new life by the Holy Spirit.

What does all this mean? What is my point? The point is that the Holy Spirit permeates the office of the priesthood. Of Christ through the Holy Spirit for the glory of the Father. The priesthood itself is endowed by God. 

I am in disagreement with you here.
The Apostles Creed (acknowledging the Trinity) makes a clear distinction between the parts of the Trinity.

"I believe in God the Father, Creator of heaven and earth"
In this concept, the Son was not the Creator...the Father was.
Adam was a product of the Father, and life in Adam was the breath of the Father.

Life is 2 Corinthians has nothing to do with physical life...it is about spiritual life.
It is the life that we have received through the Son, through His offer on the cross.

I agree with you that you could make a comparison to the formation of the church and life being given through the Holy Spirit.

But then you make a sudden swing to priesthood, which is incorrect.
Priesthood is not mentioned in 2 Corinthians, and life as given by the Father was life given to all of His creation.
Hence, if you must make a comparison, similar to life being given to all of Gods creatures, the Holy Spirit is then given to all of Jesus followers...not an exclusive few.

Your view of the Trinity is heretical and I don't say that lightly. The Trinity is a salvation issue and we can't refer to this with kid gloves. I will return when I have more adequate time to address this properly.

Why must you say that?
You have already called my opinions: "anti-Christian" and "Satanic". Now I can add "heretical" to that list.

Is it really necessary to call my views "heretical"? Does it please you to say such a thing?

Rules:
1.1 You may discuss another individual's beliefs or religious organization but you will not harass, insult, belittle, threaten, defame or flame the individual (member or nonmember) as this is considered personal attacks in posts, PMs and any other communication within this site. This includes, but is not limited to:
a. Directly calling another member "cultist," "heretic" or "bigot" as these are personal attacks and are not conducive to civil discussion.

1.2 You will not directly call another member or his or her religious organization a "cult", "heretic," "demonic" or "satanic" if it holds beliefs consistent with orthodox Christianity as set forth in Rule 6. You may discuss doctrines, teachings, practices or writings of other religious organizations as long as evidence (including Scripture) is provided.

1.5 You will not directly state or otherwise imply that another member is not a Christian if he or she genuinely believes in Jesus Christ as the savior of human beings from hell and claims to have demonstrable faith in Him.