Aqualung
Tasty
Peter had prophecy.lunamoth said:Peter had faith.
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!
Peter had prophecy.lunamoth said:Peter had faith.
And consider that during their last conversation in the Book of John, Jesus asked Peter THREE times if he "truly loved" (Godly Love) him. All Peter would admit to was merely loving (brotherly love) Jesus.lunamoth said:And also Peter denies Christ three times; he can't help himself! And this is the person who gets the keys to heaven.
NetDoc said:Jesus' teachings were FAR MORE RADICAL than Paul's... which is why he said he CAME to divide us.
Real LOVE is radical.
Matthew 5:21 "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
23"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.
25"Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.
27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. NIV
Here Jesus CLEARLY exceeded the "Law". This is LOVE with teeth in it.
John 13:34 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." NIV
By new, he meant NOT LIKE THE OLD. Jesus finished the OLD LAW with it's myriads of laws and gave us just two.
Aqualung said:Peter had prophecy.
"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
sojourner said:To me, this question invokes the parable of the prodigal. We distance ourselves, at times, from God's family, both in terms of geography and morality. Yet, God remains steadfast in God's hope that we might return. When we do, God runs to meet us.
We are all always considered by God to be part of God's family. It's the obedient son who mistakenly grumbles about his prodigal brother's being welcome.
Victor said:How far would I have to distance myself to depart from the family?
Victor said:How far would I have to distance myself to depart from the family?
sojourner said:Jesus said, "What is written in the Law?" the lawyer answered, "Love God and love your neighbor." Jesus said, "Do this and you will have eternal life." And the lawyer asked, "And who is my neighbor?" Jesus responds with the "Good Samaritan" story, finishing with, "Who proved to be the better neighbor?"
This is the same legalistic line of questioning: How far do I have to go? And Jesus answers by extending acceptance and hospitality. While the prodigal may have considered himself "not part of the family," his father waited for his son until he returned.
Victor said:I was trying to avoid from this turning into a soteriological type of dialogue. Nonetheless is happened.
Sourjourner and Luna, I would have thought both of you did not hold to a OSAS (Once-Saved-Always-Saved) stance in regards to the family of God. No?
Yes, I would agree that this is also a valid definition. We have both the visible Church and the invisible Church.lunamoth said:But the idea of the Church, as in the Catholic (Universal) Church I think takes on a different meaning, one that transcends human organizations. It is a metaphysical concept, the Bride of Christ, and I think it is much more than a particular organization of people.
Hmmm. I disagree. According to Ephesians 4:11-14, "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive "It's an interesting thing, an extraordinary thing, that Christ did not really tell us how to set up His Church. He trusted Peter and all the rest to do something that would work, and He sent the Holy Spirit to guide us.
Sure! Why not? God has never required perfection of His prophets. Look at Moses and a lot of the other Old Testament propehts. Peter was just an infallible human being like the rest of us. But the fact that he alone recognized Christ as "the Christ, the Son of the living God," was significant. Christ knew that He could ultimately depend on Peter to lead His Church in the same way in which He himself would have led it had He not been crucified. Peter was someone that Jesus knew would always be in tune with the promptings of the spirit. I believe that's why He picked Him. The fact that Peter held the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven meant that He was authorized to perform sacred ordinances (i.e. sacraments) that would be eternally binding. In other words, what he would do here on earth would have eternal significance; what he would bind here would also be bound in heaven.And also Peter denies Christ three times; he can't help himself! And this is the person who gets the keys to heaven.
OK.Katzpur said:Yes, I would agree that this is also a valid definition. We have both the visible Church and the invisible Church.
Here's the Ephesians 4 passage from NIV:kat said:Hmmm. I disagree. According to Ephesians 4:11-14, "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive "
NIV said:11It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
14Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. 15Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. 16From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.
kat said:This passage is talking about what Jesus did, not what Peter or any of the other Apostles did. Obviously, they called individuals to serve after Christ's ascension into Heaven, but He did, in fact, formulate the initial organization of His Church which, presumably, was to remain in place until we all came into the unity of faith in and knowledge of Christ.
Ah yes, this is what I was saying. We are fallible, including Peter, the rock upon which the Church was built. I guess I wasn't clear. That's why I love Peter, he's so human, which give me so much hope. The message that the Holy Spirit accomplishes her work in spite of us!Sure! Why not? God has never required perfection of His prophets. Look at Moses and a lot of the other Old Testament propehts. Peter was just an infallible human being like the rest of us.
I think Peter's recognition of Christ is significant, but I think it's a lot of conjecture to think that Christ thought that Peter would be able to 'lead His Church in the same manner as Christ.' Frankly, although Christ may not have known He would be crucified, He was in a hurry yet He did not rush to put some kind of organization in place. These were all outcomes/instruments that made sense to the early community leaders given the time and place. That was the way it evolved so the Tradition would be perpetuated and it was in this crucible of Tradition that today's cannon was put together.But the fact that he alone recognized Christ as "the Christ, the Son of the living God," was significant. Christ knew that He could ultimately depend on Peter to lead His Church in the same way in which He himself would have led it had He not been crucified. Peter was someone that Jesus knew would always be in tune with the promptings of the spirit. I believe that's why He picked Him.
Sounds good.The fact that Peter held the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven meant that He was authorized to perform sacred ordinances (i.e. sacraments) that would be eternally binding. In other words, what he would do here on earth would have eternal significance; what he would bind here would also be bound in heaven.
Victor said:I was trying to avoid from this turning into a soteriological type of dialogue. Nonetheless is happened.
Sourjourner and Luna, I would have thought both of you did not hold to a OSAS (Once-Saved-Always-Saved) stance in regards to the family of God. No?
sojourner said:I don't hold to a once-saved-always-saved doctrine. I hold to a "Christ saved all humanity for ever" stance.
Victor said:Forgive me sojorner but that can mean anything and everything. So I hate to become a detail natzi but that is exactly what causes you from not becoming a catholic and me not being a protestant. The details do matter, for they mirror who God is and isn't.
Peace be with you,
~Victor
He needs not to do any searching. That is done by those who have needs and are incomplete. That is done by us and wired in us.sojourner said:And who is God? A worldwide, compassionate Father who searches for his lost children until he finds them
Why Christ of course!sojourner said:-- who saved all humanity by his gift of grace?
It is for those who will it.sojourner said:Or a parochial, judgmental God who allows human frailty to thwart his will -- whose suffering and death was largely for naught?
Simply in the knowability and awareness of the individual. And how they respond to Grace. That makes the world of difference. It doesn't matter if I believe in those things and yet commit atrocious sins. I am not in the Church if that so. Otherwise, one could claim that Satan is in the Church. Does he doubt the power of what you speak of?sojourner said:Both the Catholic arm of the Faith, as well as the Protestant arm of the Faith is capable of portraying God in all God's mercy and lovingkindness, or God as a callous, jealous deity. Both confess that Jesus is the Son, is Lord and Savior. Both view the Holy Spirit as efficacious in baptism. Both celebrate the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Both profess the priesthood of all believers. In what way do differences of praxis and detail of belief matter, if one is building a relationship with God through Jesus, in the company of the Faithful?
Victor said:He needs not to do any searching. That is done by those who have needs and are incomplete. That is done by us and wired in us.
Why Christ of course!
It is for those who will it.
Simply in the knowability and awareness of the individual. And how they respond to Grace. That makes the world of difference. It doesn't matter if I believe in those things and yet commit atrocious sins. I am not in the Church if that so. Otherwise, one could claim that Satan is in the Church. Does he doubt the power of what you speak of?
I see now in what context you meant it. One of the great things of dialoguing in charity is coming to clarify and understand each other....I have no qualms and agree.sojourner said:Wait a minute! Didn't Christ say, "I came to seek and save those who were lost?" Did he not compare himself to a good shepherd, who seeks the lost sheep until he finds it?
Is Christ not God, according to the Nicene Creed?
They could, but I do not see how that would help your stance either way. Either way, there is a lack of uncertainty in a person's state of Grace.One could argue that, if one commits atrocities that would separate one from the Church, then one does not truly believe, in the first place.
Some Protestants, not all. Some I have spoke to do not believe it's required to respond once the process of salvation has begun. Either way they are saved, they say.sojourner said:The response to grace is that we believe in him and keep his commandments (Love God, love neighbor.) Both Catholics and Protestants believe this.
Agreed. But I do not believe that is evidence that the individual was never in Grace or never built a relationship with God. For he/she may have been in good relationship with God and fell away.sojourner said:These atrocious sins would be evidence that one is not, as I said before, "building a relationship with God through Jesus, in the company of the faithful."
Sojourner, you need to understand how far people can take the answer to this question. People will attach just about anything to God and call it holy.sojourner said:Again, what do differences matter?
I want to give this question a bit more time and thought. Also, my baby is hungry....I'll be back..Differences are good, for they reflect God's expansive and inclusine nature. I've asked the following question before, and I'm really interested in your response, because I respect your faith, your opinion, and your mind. "Why can we not have unity without insisting upon uniformity?"