Posted on 09/22/2013 7:38:11 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
sure He did, remember, thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church???? What do you suppose Christ was doing other than naming Peter as titular head of the church as He knew that He would soon be leaving Earth..
no one denies that Peter was a sinner, he denied Christ three times during the passion . ALL men are sinners and Peter is no exception. Peter, like the rest of needed salvation and chances are very good that he recieved it. That does not mean that Jesus did not choose him for the important role of guiding the church after the ressurection. Peter was, in fact the first Pope and the papal succession has continued, unbroken, to this date!!!Neat isn't it!!!
they had exclusive rights to the titles for over one thousand six hundred years. Then along came the revolution......but they still claim the titles, oh well!!
Judaism is a religious belief system as is Christianity or islam, but it is not a religious organization....Catholicism is, it has a leader and a governing body.
The Bride of Christ follows Christ and is faithful to Him, alone, she hears His voice and He knows her and she shall NEVER perish neither shall any pluck her from his hands. That is how we CAN know that any denomination or religious sect that claims exclusively to BE that body is in error. That is because the Bride of Christ WILL be all the saved. There will be no "goats", only sheep. There will be no "tares", only wheat that will enter into heaven. In my "church", there are tares just as there are in yours and in every other organized religion. Only God sees the heart and He knows those that are His.
It's one of many neat little myths Catholics like to trot out whenever they think it helps their argument. It has been shown on this forum multiple times that the very idea of a "Pope of Rome" having universal jurisdiction was not even heard of until CENTURIES after Peter was martyred. In truth, ALL the Apostles were commissioned to spread the gospel of Christ and to establish local assemblies of believers in the towns where people responded to them. Many of those churches exist to this day. What has remained unbroken is that God has always kept a remnant that remained faithful to the truth and is why we have the Holy Scriptures to guide us in the rule of the faith.
But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and manifests through us the sweet aroma of the knowledge of Him in every place. (II Cor. 2:14)
No, it isn’t neat because it isn’t true. However, you can believe all the myths and falsehoods you want - because you and you alone will give an account of what you believe and the fact that you rejected the truth of God’s Word to embrace heresies - to the Lord himself one day.
The thief on the cross belonged, and belongs now, to the "Church" (Assembly or Congregation) of true Israel which will accept Christ upon His return. The thief asked Christ to remember him when Christ comes into His Kingdom. This is a reference to Christ's coming Kingdom, physically, literally, and "politically" on the earth for 1,000 years.
Right before Jesus said to Peter- thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church - there is another scripture where Jesus asks his disciples
“who do men say I am?” Peter gave the correct answer by replying - “thou art the Christ - the son of the living God.”(Matthew 16:16) Jesus commended him by saying - 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
You have to read Scripture in light of other Scripture - not pull one out of context and build a doctrine on it. Jesus was saying to Peter - upon this rock - meaning the truth of what he had said about Christ being the son of the living God - Jesus was building HIS church - not a church for Peter.
One Thousand, Six Hundred, and fifty years to be precise - And that number should give one pause.
Really?? Peter 32-67, Linus 67-76, Cletus 76-88, Clement 88-97, Evaristus 97-105, Alexander 105-115, Sixtus 115-125....did the world just imagine this or are the revolutionaries trying to change history?????
Is your contention that Peter was the very first Pope of Rome with universal jurisdiction over all Christians of the world and that Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, et al, formally succeeded him so that the Roman Catholic Church alone can lay claim to having Apostolic Succession traced back to Peter in an uninterrupted line until today??? Careful.
A Timeline of the Early Papacy
150 ad: the church at Rome is ruled by a plurality of presbyters who quarrel about status and honor. (Shepherd of Hermas). “They had a certain jealousy of one another over questions of preeminence and about some kind of distinction. But they are all fools to be jealous of one another regarding preeminence.”
Also note in Hermas: “Clement’s” “job” is to “send books abroad.” — Peter Lampe does not think this Clement is the same individual from 1 Clement, but the time frame is appropriate.
235: Hippolytus and Pontianus are exiled from Rome by the emperor “because of street fighting between their followers” (Collins citing Cerrato, Oxford 2002).
258: Cyprian (Carthage/west) and Firmilian (Caesarea/east) both go apoplectic when Stephen tries to exercise authority outside of Rome.
306: Rival “popes” exiled because of “violent clashes” (Collins)
308: Rival “popes” exiled because of “violent clashes” (Collins again).
325: Council of Nicea: Alexandria has authority over Egypt and Libya, just as “a similar custom exists with the Bishop of Rome.” The Bishop of Jerusalem is to be honored.
381: Constantinople: Because it is new Rome, the Bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome. (This indicates Rome’s “honour” is due to its being the capital.)
431: Cyril, “stole” the council (Moffett 174, citing “Book of Heraclides) and “the followers of Cyril went about in the city girt and armed with clubs … with yells of barbarians, snorting fiercely, raging with extravagant arrogance against those whom they knew to be opposed to their doings…”
451: Chalcedon, 28th canon, passed by the council at the 16th session, “The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of Older Rome, since that is an imperial city; moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of New Rome …” (Rejected by the pope. But what were these “devout bishops” thinking?).
Schatz, summarizing: In any case it is clear that Roman primacy was not a given from the outset ; it underwent a long process of development whose initial phases extended well into the fifth century. The question is then: can we reasonably say of this historically developed papacy that it was instituted by Christ and therefore must always continue to exist?
His response is that the institution of the Church “must be understood in such a way that an awareness of what is essential and enduring … develops only as a result of historical challenges and experiences.”
That is there was no notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime. There was no notion that Jesus expected Peter to have “successors,” nor that Matthew expected a successor to Peter (Schatz, pg 1).
Only after there was no longer a political power in the west to challenge papal claims, did the “awareness” of the “essential and enduring” nature of the papacy take hold. http://reformation500.com/2009/07/03/a-timeline-of-the-early-papacy/
it never fails to amaze me how a protty can post scripture and then proceed to misinterpret it.....Christ clearly meant that Peter was the rock upon which Christ was building His church...Christians have taught this for two thousand years.....you want to correct them?????
in your elequant post #52 did you notice that you produced a timeline which included ONLY Catholic Christians???? not a Baptist nor Lutheran mentioned....
You can believe your man-made doctrine, but I choose to believe the Word of God. I posted the scripture and the true meaning of it, and you refuse to come to the knowledge of the truth. How sad! Jesus meant no such thing - but, as I said - you are free to believe lies if you so choose - and its apparent that you do!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.