Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
t3gah said:According to Jesus in the New Testament, Peter is Satan.
I stand (well, sit actually) corrected; thanks for putting me straight !NetDoc said:Michel,
As brash as Peter was, he never claimed to be the Pope. The office was never reffered to at all in the NT. The other Apostles did not exalt him as such either, and there were no means of succession devised.
The Pope is part an parcel the "head" of the Catholic Priesthood. The whole thrust of the NT was that ALL Christians are priests and need no additional help in reaching God. In fact it was Peter who told we are ALL ROYAL PRIESTS. There can be no higher:
I Peter 2:4As you come to him, the living Stonerejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him 5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For in Scripture it says:
"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame."[a] 7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
"The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone,[b]"[c] 8and,
"A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall."[d] They stumble because they disobey the messagewhich is also what they were destined for.
9But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. NIV
In addition, we have no need for any other "High Priest" other than Jesus:
Hebrews 7:23Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25Therefore he is able to save completely[c] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
26Such a high priest meets our needone who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever. NIV
And yet the evidence has been put forth. Disagree with it if you li,e but to say there is "no" evidence is somewhat absurd.njcl said:there is no evidence to suggest peter was the first pope.....................peace
Seeing as no one worshipped the Pope or does now, I don't get your point. Either way, I would argue Peter was Catholic, but this thread seems to have died...Stormygale said:LOL. Who cares if Peter was the first pope. He's been dead a long time. I believe with all honesty that ttooooo much emphasis is cast on the 'office' of a pope. A pope is one appointed by the people, not by God. During the recent passing of John Paul, I was appauled to see how much emphasis was cast on the pope. He is not God. I know people will come and say that they were missing him because he was a great man and did wonderous marvels and the such. I agree. Yet, he was put up on a pedistal as a God. That confuses me...
-
As for Peter being the first pope...
Was he Catholic.
Probably not.
Distiction without a difference to us Catholics.NetDoc said:Hmnnnn...
The real question would be whether Peter considered himself Catholic or just Christian?
Well, I don't consider JW's to be Christian..... but in your other examples I believe he is/was! There is only ONE body of Christ. There is ONE faith, ONE Baptism, ONE Church. We are all Christians.NetDoc said:Using that logic Scott, then Peter was also Lutheran, Methodist and JW... though he never called himself such.
Are you saying that Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, Methodists etc DON'T follow Christ?While I can't fully devine Peter's will here, I do know that Paul would have had HUGE issues with being lumped into any such "denomination".
Catholics consider themselve not only Christians, but we have the fullness of Christianity. Names are just for convenience. It is much easier to say Lutherans, and Methodist, than "Those Christians who follow Luther's teachings" etc.NetDoc said:Using that logic Scott, then Peter was also Lutheran, Methodist and JW... though he never called himself such. While I can't fully devine Peter's will here, I do know that Paul would have had HUGE issues with being lumped into any such "denomination".
I Corinthians 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14 I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospelnot with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. NIV