Authority of the apostles

[actsfourthirty]

No Jesus is the rock. This is the most misused verse in all scripture, by Rome .

No Jesus is the rock. This is the most misused verse in all scripture, by Rome .

why is peter mentioned?
Does peter receive the keys?
Does peter receive the power to bind and loose?

Jesus is the king and rock of salvation
But he is the only one who has authority to build the church
he builds on Peter and the apostles and their successors Matt 16:18 18:18 Jn 20:21-23 eph 2:20

 

[actsfourthirty]

that’s fair enough

can I ask you a question?

mare you a hybrid
Made up of two entities
One physical
And one spiritual?

there a method to my madness


Science proves man is a hybrid, and the existence of a spiritual reality, and logic proves there must be a creator!

According to the scientific law of change, man is a hybrid body and soul, or person, the law of change being applied, the body changes all through life, but the person does not change, you are always the same person, so man must be a hybrid!

Your body is physical and sense perceptible, or known by the senses.
What is the origin of your body, it is according to science the result of natural conception of your parents!

Your person is not physical, not sense perceptible, therefore not physical, so there must be some non-physical reality, or spiritual reality!
A supernatural reality!

What is the origin of your person, it is not physical so it does not result from physical natural conception, at one time you did not exist, now you do exist, the only logical conclusion is that you were created, so there must be a creator!

 

[John1.12]

Jesus changed Simon's name to "Kephas", which means "rock" or "stone" in Aramaic. Instead, Jesus is identified as being the "Cornerstone", which is "eben" in Aramaic.

There is no reference to Peter being the leader/ pope / founder / in any of the epistles. He practically disappears into the background after Acts 15 .. Its Paul who is the focus not peter . This alone proves Rome wrong .

 

[John1.12]

why is peter mentioned?
Does peter receive the keys?
Does peter receive the power to bind and loose?

Jesus is the king and rock of salvation
But he is the only one who has authority to build the church
he builds on Peter and the apostles and their successors Matt 16:18 18:18 Jn 20:21-23 eph 2:20

This is just Roman Catholicism. Anyone who just read the bible would notice the distinct lack of focus on Peter after Acts 15 .

 

[John1.12]

why is peter mentioned?
Does peter receive the keys?
Does peter receive the power to bind and loose?

Jesus is the king and rock of salvation
But he is the only one who has authority to build the church
he builds on Peter and the apostles and their successors Matt 16:18 18:18 Jn 20:21-23 eph 2:20

you are Peter (πέτρος, petros) and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build My church…” Greek nouns have gender. It is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine, and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word “petros” is masculine; “petra” is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros. But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine “petros” but the feminine “petra.” Let me illustrate by using the words “actor” and “actress:” “You are the actor; and with this actress, I will make my movie.” Do see that gender influences how a sentence is understood? Jesus was not saying that the church will be built upon Peter but upon something else. What, then, does petra, the feminine noun, refer to?

The feminine “petra” occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:

• Matt. 16:18, “And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.”
• Matt. 27:60, “and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away.”
• 1 Cor. 10:4, “and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ.”
• 1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is “A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense”; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.”

We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular; “petras” in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular) we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:8). Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus! If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn’t we?

 

[John1.12]

Jesus changed Simon's name to "Kephas", which means "rock" or "stone" in Aramaic. Instead, Jesus is identified as being the "Cornerstone", which is "eben" in Aramaic.

you are Peter (πέτρος, petros) and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build My church…” Greek nouns have gender. It is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine, and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word “petros” is masculine; “petra” is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros. But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine “petros” but the feminine “petra.” Let me illustrate by using the words “actor” and “actress:” “You are the actor; and with this actress, I will make my movie.” Do see that gender influences how a sentence is understood? Jesus was not saying that the church will be built upon Peter but upon something else. What, then, does petra, the feminine noun, refer to?

The feminine “petra” occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:

• Matt. 16:18, “And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.”
• Matt. 27:60, “and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away.”
• 1 Cor. 10:4, “and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ.”
• 1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is “A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense”; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.”

We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular; “petras” in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular) we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:8). Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus! If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn’t we?

 

[metis]

There is no reference to Peter being the / pope / founder / in any of the epistles.

The use of the terms "pope" was not used until several centuries later, but the label of being the "Bishop of Rome" was used by the end of the 1st century. Matter of fact, Ignatius of Antioch wrote a letter to Clement of Rome that mentions Peter being executed there and that the leadership of that bishop would be necessary to help keep the Church as "one body", which Paul repeatedly insisted must be the case. Without such leadership the Church would fragment, which unfortunately it did centuries later anyway.

He practically disappears into the background after Acts 15 .. Its Paul who is the focus not peter .

That has already ben explained, so you simply have some sort of "issue" trying to negate what's found in the Gospels on this. Paul simply cannot and does not make important decisions on his own as he shown by his actions of consulting with Peter, whereas it's Peter who makes these decisions. And it's also Peter's vision that ended the Jewish law of keeping kosher that opened the door to abandoning the letter of the law so as to carry forth Jesus' Two Commandments that was and is the theological foundation for the Church.

You claim to believe in the Bible and yet you refuse to believe what's in there dealing with this issue, and you're making it increasingly clear why, namely an anti-Catholic bias.

This alone proves Rome wrong .

"Rome" didn't make these decisions, but the Church under leadership from the Bishop of Rome and other bishops made them as appointees of the Apostles that one can see happening in Acts.

Maybe do some studying on early Church history, and one can even start here: Christianity - Wikipedia

 

[metis]

you are Peter (πέτρος, petros) and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build My church…” Greek nouns have gender. It is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine, and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word “petros” is masculine; “petra” is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros. But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine “petros” but the feminine “petra.”

Again, you're ignoring the simple fact that what we see in that narrative is a play on words, and since Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic, one needs to go there as I previously posted.

When that was eventually translated into Koine Greek, this play on words wouldn't make sense if the Aramaic name "Kephas" was used, so they have to convert that over to Greek, which is gender-sensitive. In order to get that play on words correct in Greek, they would have to use "Petros" because "petra" (i.e. stone or rock) is feminine.

If it wouldn't have been this play on words, then the Aramaic name for Peter would have sufficed-- but the translators didn't use that Aramaic name.

 

[John1.12]

The use of the terms "pope" was not used until several centuries later, but the label of being the "Bishop of Rome" was used by the end of the 1st century. Matter of fact, Ignatius of Antioch wrote a letter to Clement of Rome that mentions Peter being executed there and that the leadership of that bishop would be necessary to help keep the Church as "one body", which Paul repeatedly insisted must be the case. Without such leadership the Church would fragment, which unfortunately it did centuries later anyway.

That has already ben explained, so you simply have some sort of "issue" trying to negate what's found in the Gospels on this. Paul simply cannot and does not make important decisions on his own as he shown by his actions of consulting with Peter, whereas it's Peter who makes these decisions. And it's also Peter's vision that ended the Jewish law of keeping kosher that opened the door to abandoning the letter of the law so as to carry forth Jesus' Two Commandments that was and is the theological foundation for the Church.

You claim to believe in the Bible and yet you refuse to believe what's in there dealing with this issue, and you're making it increasingly clear why, namely an anti-Catholic bias.

"Rome" didn't make these decisions, but the Church under leadership from the Bishop of Rome and other bishops made them as appointees of the Apostles that one can see happening in Acts.

Maybe do some studying on early Church history, and one can even start here: Christianity - Wikipedia

Its Paul who has to rebuke Peter for being a hypocrite.
Gal 2

7But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

9And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

10Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

11¶But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14¶But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

 

[John1.12]

Again, you're ignoring the simple fact that what we see in that narrative is a play on words, and since Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic, one needs to go there as I previously posted.

When that was eventually translated into Koine Greek, this play on words wouldn't make sense if the Aramaic name "Kephas" was used, so they have to convert that over to Greek, which is gender-sensitive. In order to get that play on words correct in Greek, they would have to use "Petros" because "petra" (i.e. stone or rock) is feminine.

If it wouldn't have been this play on words, then the Aramaic name for Peter would have sufficed-- but the translators didn't use that Aramaic name.

There is no Peter at Rome . Where is he in the book of Romans ? On holiday ? So much for being the ' leader ' , he's not even mentioned at the Church at Rome .

 

[John1.12]

Again, you're ignoring the simple fact that what we see in that narrative is a play on words, and since Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic, one needs to go there as I previously posted.

When that was eventually translated into Koine Greek, this play on words wouldn't make sense if the Aramaic name "Kephas" was used, so they have to convert that over to Greek, which is gender-sensitive. In order to get that play on words correct in Greek, they would have to use "Petros" because "petra" (i.e. stone or rock) is feminine.

If it wouldn't have been this play on words, then the Aramaic name for Peter would have sufficed-- but the translators didn't use that Aramaic name.

Its Rome that is playing with words .

 

[metis]

Its Paul who has to rebuke Peter for being a hypocrite.

"Hypocrite" is too strong a word for what was happening as the issue of how much of Jewish Law was to be enforced on Gentile coverts was in limbo. Thus, what you are failing to see is the Church, thus including Peter, was trying to figure out which of the Jewish laws should be followed. This transition also includes other aspects of Jewish Law as well, including keeping kosher, which Peter does settle with his vision.

It's so pathetic for you to continue to bad-mouth Peter the way you are repeatedly doing, and this seems to be more of a projection of religious bigotry. Peter is by no means without sin, but you just keep piling more and more hot coals on him while propping up Paul at his expense, and your motive for doing this is becoming increasingly clear.

I don't have the time to get to your other posts, so I'll have to address them either later today [probably not] or tomorrow.

 

[John1.12]

"Hypocrite" is too strong a word for what was happening as the issue of how much of Jewish Law was to be enforced on Gentile coverts was in limbo. Thus, what you are failing to see is the Church, thus including Peter, was trying to figure out which of the Jewish laws should be followed. This transition also includes other aspects of Jewish Law as well, including keeping kosher, which Peter does settle with his vision.

It's so pathetic for you to continue to bad-mouth Peter the way you are repeatedly doing, and this seems to be more of a projection of religious bigotry. Peter is by no means without sin, but you just keep piling more and more hot coals on him while propping up Paul at his expense, and your motive for doing this is becoming increasingly clear.

I don't have the time to get to your other posts, so I'll have to address them either later today [probably not] or tomorrow.

I'm not " bad mouthing Peter " I'm rightly placing Peter in context of the bible . And at same time rejecting Roman Catholicism.

 

[John1.12]

"Hypocrite" is too strong a word for what was happening as the issue of how much of Jewish Law was to be enforced on Gentile coverts was in limbo. Thus, what you are failing to see is the Church, thus including Peter, was trying to figure out which of the Jewish laws should be followed. This transition also includes other aspects of Jewish Law as well, including keeping kosher, which Peter does settle with his vision.

It's so pathetic for you to continue to bad-mouth Peter the way you are repeatedly doing, and this seems to be more of a projection of religious bigotry. Peter is by no means without sin, but you just keep piling more and more hot coals on him while propping up Paul at his expense, and your motive for doing this is becoming increasingly clear.

I don't have the time to get to your other posts, so I'll have to address them either later today [probably not] or tomorrow.

Paul is given direct revelation from Jesus. He is not taught by no man . If anyone was going to be the pope it should have been Paul , but thank goodness ,Roman Catholicism is false

 

[metis]

There is no Peter at Rome . Where is he in the book of Romans ? On holiday ? So much for being the ' leader ' , he's not even mentioned at the Church at Rome .

Actually he is as any serious theologian would tell you:
1Pet.5[13] She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark.

In that verse, the feminine version of "Babylon" is used, and that without a doubt is a reference to the city of Rome as the Roman Empire is referred to as "Babylon the Great" as found in Revelation and other early writings. Also, we know from early letters, including that which I mentioned from Ignatius of Antioch, that both Paul and Peter were crucified there.

 

[John1.12]

Actually he is as any serious theologian would tell you:
1Pet.5[13] She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark.

In that verse, the feminine version of "Babylon" is used, and that without a doubt is a reference to the city of Rome as the Roman Empire is referred to as "Babylon the Great" as found in Revelation and other early writings. Also, we know from early letters, including that which I mentioned from Ignatius of Antioch, that both Paul and Peter were crucified there.

If Babylon is Rome in 1 Peter 5:13, then it has to be Rome in Revelation. But if it is Rome in Revelation 17, then the Roman Catholic Church is a HARLOT CHURCH.

 

[metis]

Paul is given direct revelation from Jesus. He is not taught by no man . If anyone was going to be the pope it should have been Paul ,

Paul was helped by both Anani'as and Barnabas after receiving revelation from Jesus on the way to Damascas as he lived with the former for a while.

..but thank goodness ,Roman Catholicism is false

There's no "goodness" in religious bigotry.

Have you ever gone to a Catholic mass? If so, did you pay attention from the sources of the reading, the prayers, and the homily [sermon] in terms of where they come from? Do you want me to post these sources?

Also, your bigotry is in violation of what Jude said, such as here:
Jude.1[19] It is these who set up divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit.

 

[metis]

And at same time rejecting Roman Catholicism.

That's fine as far as I'm concerned, so maybe just mind your own business and let us worship God in our way. Is that really too much to ask, or is your hatred that deep?

 

[metis]

If Babylon is Rome in 1 Peter 5:13, then it has to be Rome in Revelation. But if it is Rome in Revelation 17, then the Roman Catholic Church is a HARLOT CHURCH.

"Babylon the Great" is a reference to the Roman Empire, not the "diocese" of Rome. Oh my aching back!

Who is teaching you this pathetically dishonest nonsense? If you're doing this on your own, then let me just ay there's really no room for one who believes in Jesus to spew the hate-filled bigotry we are seeing from you. Jesus said to "love one another as I have loved you", and yet what I see you all too frequently posting is hate, hate, and more hate.

 

[John1.12]

Paul was helped by both Anani'as and Barnabas after receiving revelation from Jesus on the way to Damascas as he lived with the former for a while.

There's no "goodness" in religious bigotry.

Have you ever gone to a Catholic mass? If so, did you pay attention from the sources of the reading, the prayers, and the homily [sermon] in terms of where they come from? Do you want me to post these sources?

Also, your bigotry is in violation of what Jude said, such as here:
Jude.1[19] It is these who set up divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit.

Catholicism is famous for Bible + tradition.