The Chair of Peter

[Mungo]

When you get time, read Galatians, chapter 2 Paul refers to Peter as the apostle to the Jews, and criticizes him for his hypocrisy.

Paul was a hypocrite also.
In Acts 15 the decision was made at the council of Jerusalem that circumcision was not necessary to become a Christian.
In Acts 16 Paul has Timothy circumcised because his father was a Greek and the Jews in the are knew it.
And then they went on to deliver the message from the council at Jerusalem - about not needing to be circumcised.

 

[jaybo]

Paul was a hypocrite also.
In Acts 15 the decision was made at the council of Jerusalem that circumcision was not necessary to become a Christian.
In Acts 16 Paul has Timothy circumcised because his father was a Greek and the Jews in the are knew it.
And then they went on to deliver the message from the council at Jerusalem - about not needing to be circumcised.

Seriously? Even if this statement had validity (which it doesn't), do you remember the old saying from childhood "two wrongs don't make a right"?

I never claimed that Paul was perfect, but the discussion is about Peter. He was a weak, vacillating man who put his own popularity before the truth.

 

[Mungo]

Seriously? Even if this statement had validity (which it doesn't), do you remember the old saying from childhood "two wrongs don't make a right"?

It does have validity.

I never claimed that Paul was perfect, but the discussion is about Peter. He was a weak, vacillating man who put his own popularity before the truth.

You keep making claims about Peter's character that are not backed up by scripture.
He wasn't weak.
He wasn't vacillating.
Yes, he made mistakes, as we all do.
He had to learn, as we all do.
But he was a man chosen by God to lead his Church.

 

[Benadam]

When Peter was in Galatia and Paul sternly rebuked him for his hypocrisy.

Galatians 2:11-14, " But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong. Until certain people came from James, he had been eating with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself because he was afraid of those who were pro-circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also joined with him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray with them by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not behaving consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “If you, although you are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you try to force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Never forget what Jesus said to him: "But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but on man’s.”

He never said anything close to that to any of the other apostles!

Peter was obviously a very conflicted, flawed man. He was the apostle to the Jews, but acted hypocritically, and Paul called him on it. Paul accused him of not behaving consistently with the truth of the gospel.

So, Jesus called him "Satan" and said he was a stumbling block (clearly contrasting with "on this rock I will build my church"). He accused him of setting his mind on man's interests, not God's.

Paul called him a hypocrite who didn't behave according to the gospel.

And this is the man who Catholics revere (in their own history) as the first Pope! Something is very definitely wrong here!!!

Tis all happened to Peter because he is the leader. If He wasn't his behavior wouldn't be under such scrutiny.

Satan wanted control of Jesus. Satan targeted Peter immediately after Jesus made Him steward of His kingdom. Satan targeted Peter because he is lead Apostle. It doesn't prove he wasn't.
Jesus only told Peter that he and the other Apostles that they were going to suffer at the hands of Satan. Then Jesus commanded Peter to comfort the other Apostles. He didn't let any one else know so for a time only Peter knew about what was to come That's how a hierarchy operates



Both Jesus and Satan treated Peter as lead Apostle.

 

[jaybo]

It does have validity.

You keep making claims about Peter's character that are not backed up by scripture.
He wasn't weak.
He wasn't vacillating.
Yes, he made mistakes, as we all do.
He had to learn, as we all do.
But he was a man chosen by God to lead his Church.

He wasn't chosen by God to lead his Church.

These are the verses that the Catholic denomination builds their doctrine on: Matthew 16:17-18, "And Jesus answered him. “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven! And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it."

Now if you go a few verses after, it says this: Matthew 16:22-23, "So Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him: “God forbid, Lord! This must not happen to you!” But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but on man’s.”

Notice that Jesus calls him a) "Satan" and b) a stumbling block. (The latter is obviously in contrast to "on this rock...")

The Catholic church has a clear need to elevate Peter to a position that is not substantiated by Scripture. (The same way that other unScriptural doctrines are promoted.) He was a flawed, vacillating man as is clearly shown in the Bible.

Read Galatians if you want to see Peter for who he actually was, not how you want him to be.

 

[GodsGrace]

You wrote...

How can I be sure it's Pizzaro's bones?
How do we know he was instrumental in murdering countless Indians?
Might it be due to history?

How can you be sure that Peter's chair is Peter's chait, or that he even lived for that matter? Pizzaro killed countless Indians in the name of the Catholic denomination. Pizzaro conquered the Peruvians and his bones are in the cathedral in Lima, Peru. History is history, the record of what happened in the past. If you don't believe it, it's of no concern. You're the one who goes on and on about history.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You've always made it sound like all the Christian history that ever took place is in the NT.

This is nonsense. Read the above paragraph. Did you get up on the wrong side of bed this morning?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No....Christian history continued after Jesus died and to this day. The church is making history right now.

Wow! Really??? You mean history is an ongoing process? Amazing!

Oh for goodness sake Jaybo...
WHO continues to state that this or that matter is not in the bible?

As if history stopped at Revelation.

It hasn't been me.

Ot sounds like it might just be church history that you don't care for.

This conversation is pointless.

 

[GodsGrace]

What's the difference between Messianic and Christian?

A Messianic Jew is a person that was raised Jewish but has come to believe that Jesus is the awaited Messiah.

They worship Jesus as Lord but retain their Jewish traditions.

 

[jaybo]

Oh for goodness sake Jaybo...
WHO continues to state that this or that matter is not in the bible?

As if history stopped at Revelation.

It hasn't been me.

Ot sounds like it might just be church history that you don't care for.

This conversation is pointless.

I agree that this discussion is pointless. I believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior and believe the Bible is the word of God. Everything else beyond those two things is pointless, including the unscriptural mythology and claims of the Catholic denomination.

As I have said before, there are so many doctrines, rituals, etc. that have been invented by the Catholic denomination (which is not mentioned in the Bible) that true Christianity has been all but lost.

You all like to claim that you are the one true church, but you are anything but. The true church is the body of Christ -- all believers. In Him we live, move, and have our being.

 

[andy pandy]

I oversee the Catholicism Forum.
So when you post here I am your overseer.

have it your way if it makes you happy.

 

[WIP]

I have a question. Why is it that so many feel threatened by Peter's position as one of the first Christian leaders and why is Peter's position today looked at as strictly Catholic? After all, until the reformation, all of us shared the same historical path.

 

[GodsGrace]

I have a question. Why is it that so many feel threatened by Peter's position as one of the first Christian leaders and why is Peter's position today looked at as strictly Catholic? After all, until the reformation, all of us shared the same historical path.

I have the same question.
I think the problem is that the CC wants to call Peter the first Pope.
He was one of the 5 persons at that time that were called Pope.
This does not deny that he was A first Pope...there were 4 others.
Eventually, it was decided that the Bishop of Rome would be the only Bishop called Papa, which is an endearing term, and was used for the 5 major Popes that guided the church in their part of the world.

I've also thought a lot about what Jesus meant when He said:
And upon this rock...

I really believe he meant Peter.
Why would Jesus say to Peter YOU are the rock...
but I'm building the church upon me....
It seems silly for Jesus to have made such a statement.

Personally, I don't give this too much thought.
If theologians are not agreed, how could we possibly know?

I think it's a good thing that Catholics can accept what their church teaches.

 

[jaybo]

I have a question. Why is it that so many feel threatened by Peter's position as one of the first Christian leaders and why is Peter's position today looked at as strictly Catholic? After all, until the reformation, all of us shared the same historical path.

I don't think that "so many feel threatened by Peter's position as one of the first Christian leaders ". What I personally object to is the exaggeration of Peter's role. He was one of the original apostles, but there were 11 others. He wrote two small NT "books" (if they're actually his), far less than Paul. He was designated the apostle to the Jews and behaved hypocritically in Galatia; Paul was far more influential. Jesus said, "on this rock I will build my church" but called him "Satan" and "a stumbling block" shortly thereafter.

Catholic call him "the first Pope" but as wondering said above, he was one of the 5 persons at that time that were called Pope. The basilica in Rome is named after him, but there are other structures of significance throughout the Christian world. This thread is entitled "The chair of Peter", referring to his "throne".

Why the lionization of this man way beyond his importance in Scripture while others were also of great importance? He was significant, but so were many others. Why not lionize Paul equally (or more so)?

Why not focus on Jesus???

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't think that "so many feel threatened by Peter's position as one of the first Christian leaders ". What I personally object to is the exaggeration of Peter's role. He was one of the original apostles, but there were 11 others. He wrote two small NT "books" (if they're actually his), far less than Paul. He was designated the apostle to the Jews and behaved hypocritically in Galatia; Paul was far more influential. Jesus said, "on this rock I will build my church" but called him "Satan" and "a stumbling block" shortly thereafter.

Catholic call him "the first Pope" but as wondering said above, he was one of the 5 persons at that time that were called Pope. The basilica in Rome is named after him, but there are other structures of significance throughout the Christian world. This thread is entitled "The chair of Peter", referring to his "throne".

Why the lionization of this man way beyond his importance in Scripture while others were also of great importance? He was significant, but so were many others. Why not lionize Paul equally (or more so)?

Why not focus on Jesus???

We're not focusing on Jesus because we're here to learn about the Catholic Church.
It's taken for granted that Jesus is THE MOST IMPORTANT person in the NT.

If it's any consolation to you, my CC here in my town is called
LA CHIESA DI SAN PAOLO E PIETRO.

Peter is important because when there was a question in the time right after Jesus,
the other Popes TURNED TO PETER.

How many times have I said this?
They did NOT turn to Paul...Paul was NOT one of the Popes of the time.

He was a great writer...not everyone is.
Everyone that spread the word of God was important.

Maybe we could stop this comparison stuff that is not doing anyone any good !

 

[Benadam]

You all like to claim that you are the one true church, but you are anything but. The true church is the body of Christ -- all believers. In Him we live, move, and have our being.

Jesus established and describes that Church the Church as the bible describes has no no resemblance to a Church defined as "all believers"
The Church Christ established is Incarnational because Jesus is.
Do you believe Jesus established One Church with a doctrine free from error? Of so where is it? I believe that's

He wasn't chosen by God to lead his Church.

These are the verses that the Catholic denomination builds their doctrine on: Matthew 16:17-18, "And Jesus answered him. “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven! And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it."

Now if you go a few verses after, it says this: Matthew 16:22-23, "So Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him: “God forbid, Lord! This must not happen to you!” But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but on man’s.”

Notice that Jesus calls him a) "Satan" and b) a stumbling block. (The latter is obviously in contrast to "on this rock...")

The Catholic church has a clear need to elevate Peter to a position that is not substantiated by Scripture. (The same way that other unScriptural doctrines are promoted.) He was a flawed, vacillating man as is clearly shown in the Bible.

Read Galatians if you want to see Peter for who he actually was, not how you want him to be.

All this oes is demonstrate prejudice by bias

 

[jaybo]

Jesus established and describes that Church the Church as the bible describes has no no resemblance to a Church defined as "all believers"
The Church Christ established is Incarnational because Jesus is.
Do you believe Jesus established One Church with a doctrine free from error? Of so where is it? I believe that's

All this oes is demonstrate prejudice by bias

a) I don't understand what you're trying to say. Please write clearly.
b) Your comment about demonstrating by bias is wrong and irrelevant.

 

[Benadam]

You all like to claim that you are the one true church, but you are anything but. The true church is the body of Christ -- all believers. In Him we live, move, and have our being.

Jesus established and describes that Church the Church as the bible describes has no no resemblance to a Church defined as "all believers"
Do you believe Jesus established One Church with a doctrine free from error? With teachers appointed and authorized to teach?

That is what the Church looks like in the bible

 

[GodsGrace]

Jesus established and describes that Church the Church as the bible describes has no no resemblance to a Church defined as "all believers"
The Church Christ established is Incarnational because Jesus is.
Do you believe Jesus established One Church with a doctrine free from error? Of so where is it? I believe that's

All this oes is demonstrate prejudice by bias

Well, even the CC recognizes the Body of Christ.
All believers are part of the Body.
No matter what denomination.

The CC has changed its position on the idea of being "outside the church".
Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus no longer applies since Vatican Council II.

 

[GodsGrace]

a) I don't understand what you're trying to say. Please write clearly.
b) Your comment about demonstrating by bias is wrong and irrelevant.

you're not biased Jaybo???



Thanks. That was my laugh for the day.

 

[jaybo]

Jesus established and describes that Church the Church as the bible describes has no no resemblance to a Church defined as "all believers"
Do you believe Jesus established One Church with a doctrine free from error? With teachers appointed and authorized to teach?

That is what the Church looks like in the bible

Ephesians 1:23, "Now the church is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all."

Ephesians 4:11-13, "And he himself gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, that is, to build up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God—a mature person, attaining to the measure of Christ’s full stature."

Ephesians 5:29, "For no one has ever hated his own body, but he feeds it and takes care of it, just as Christ also does the church,"

It is clear that the church is one body, composed of all believers.

 

[jaybo]

you're not biased Jaybo???



Thanks. That was my laugh for the day.

FYI, it was Benadam who wrote "All this oes [sic] is demonstrate prejudice by bias", not me. I replied "Your comment about demonstrating by bias is wrong and irrelevant."

So are you boasting about your negativity? Very nice -- not. Does your belief force you to make snide and cynical remarks?