Realitybites said:

---

Hark the Herald Angels Sing is probably my favorite. I don't think that there is another Christmas Carol that captures so much Christian doctrine in a single song.

---

Great Song.

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

Oldbear83 said:

---

" The Bible is extremely clear that Peter was the undeniable leader of the early Church."

With all due respect, if that statement were true there would not have been such sharp disagreement all these years.

---

With all due respect, the evidence is ignored by those that don't want to except it -

• Jesus renames Simon as Peter, the Rock, upon which he builds his foundation of the Church.
• He is consistently listed first among the apostles in the Gospels and is mentioned more than all the other apostles combined.
• He is often the spokesman for the apostles, as seen during events like Pentecost, delivering a defining sermon that leads to the conversion of thousands.
• In Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem, he leads the discussion there.
• The first half of Acts focuses on his miracles and his missionary journey.

Despite their disagreement with the Catholic Church's claim of Apostolic Succession, protestant scholars like F.F. Bruce, N.T. Wright, James D.G. Dunn, and J.N.D. Kelly believe that Peter was the leader in the early Church.

Your "evidence" is no more than subjective assumptions based on cherry-picking interpretations to support only your pre-assigned choice.

It's no more valid than Jews who say Jesus was not the Christ because they have an interpretation of the Old Testament that says what they want.

I have repeatedly reminded you, just as one example, that the verse you pretend has Jesus promoting Peter to Pope does no such thing. Instead Jesus built His Church on the FAITH shown by Peter in that moment and not Peter himself, especially since just minutes later Jesus called Peter 'Satan' for his lack of faith. You never addressed the point that if Jesus was talking about Peter then Jesus was saying 'Satan' would lead His Church, which is plainly not true .

You are free to believe what you want, but pretending there is evidence in Scripture for your claim is to bear false witness.

Happy New Year

Oldbear83 said:

---

Your "evidence" is no more than subjective assumptions based on cherry-picking interpretations to support only your pre-assigned choice.

It's no more valid than Jews who say Jesus was not the Christ because they have an interpretation of the Old Testament that says what they want.

I have repeatedly reminded you, just as one example, that the verse you pretend has Jesus promoting Peter to Pope does no such thing. Instead Jesus built His Church on the FAITH shown by Peter in that moment and not Peter himself, especially since just minutes later Jesus called Peter 'Satan' for his lack of faith. You never addressed the point that if Jesus was talking about Peter then Jesus was saying 'Satan' would lead His Church, which is plainly not true .

You are free to believe what you want, but pretending there is evidence in Scripture for your claim is to bear false witness.

---

I'll believe what has been believed for nearly 2000 years.

Catholics can also look at John 21 when Jesus allows Peter to repeat of his three-fold denial with his three-fold affirmation of his love for Jesus in John 21 when He tells Peter to Feed my lambs," "Tend my sheep," and "Feed my sheep," signifying the vital call to nourish, guide, and care for God's people through teaching His Word and showing love.

I'll also cite that Jesus, in Luke, tells Peter that He prays for him (singular) and to strengthen his brothers.

You don't accept it. That goes against history and that's on you.

Like I said, even protestant scholars believe that Peter was the undisputed leader of the Apostles.

Coke Bear said:

---

Like I said, even protestant scholars believe that Peter was the undisputed leader of the Apostles.

---

Let's reverse engineer your position for a moment.

1. I presume that you believe that Peter was the first Pope, and the first occupant of that office.
2. Do you believe that Peter, as the first Pope, also had the power to speak "ex-cathedra"?

I did notice that you still ignore the glaring problem in the Scripture you think says what in fact it does not.

Happy New Year, though!

The Bible is the final authority on earth. Not the Church or the Pope or tradition. The literal translation of the bible. Not the allegorized, fictionalized, false version of scripture. God expects us to believe what He says. When we stand before Him he is not going to accept the excuse that we didn't believe what He said and that He meant something other than what the word says. Just like any legal document the Bible is to be literally interpreted.

Happy New Year

So far so good

Back to business tomorrow. Hope you all had a great Christmas and new year.

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

...

A PRAYER OF SALVATION: If you have any doubts about whether or not you are going to heaven, YOU COULD HUMBLY PRAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO GOD FROM YOUR HEART IN FAITH:

"Dear Lord Jesus I know that I am a sinner and need you to save me. I believe that You are the Lord and believe in my heart that You died on the Cross and Rose from the dead, shedding your blood as the Sacrifice for my sins. I turn to You as the only way of Salvation, I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours, I place my Faith and Trust in You alone as Lord of my life, Please save me and I thank You for it, in Jesus holy name, Amen."

If you have truly placed your faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord, submitting your life to Him, you can know that you are a child of God and on your way to heaven. Now that you are on your way to heaven, you should attend a bible believing Church and follow in baptism.

Studying The Bible Is Essential To Christians Growth. Click Here To Walk Through The Bible Verse By Verse From The Beginning, In 25 Minute Lessons:

https://www.lesfeldick.org/

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

...

1 Corinthians 2:9 NIV
[9] However, as it is written: "What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived" the things God has prepared for those who love him

Let's pray that God uses these threads to lead mutitudes to Him for Salvation.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Let's pray that God uses these threads to lead mutitudes to Him for Salvation.

---

Let's pray they don't put too many people off.

Realitybites said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Like I said, even protestant scholars believe that Peter was the undisputed leader of the Apostles.

---

Let's reverse engineer your position for a moment.

1. I presume that you believe that Peter was the first Pope, and the first occupant of that office.
2. Do you believe that Peter, as the first Pope, also had the power to speak "ex-cathedra"?

---

1. Yes
2. Yes, he wrote two encyclicals called 1 & 2 Peter, which are found in bibles today.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I did notice that you still ignore the glaring problem in the Scripture you think says what in fact it does not.

Happy New Year, though!

---

Thank you! Happy New Year to you and your family, as well!

Quite frankly, Matt 16:18 and John 21:15-17 means exactly what I believe those passages to mean. My beliefs are the same as the Church fathers who expressed them more than 1000 years before the so-called reformers were born.

Here is an article with protestant scholars that actually believe with the Catholic positions that Peter is the Rock that the Church is built upon.

Protestant Scholars on Mt 16:16-19

Having said that, I am not opposed to saying that Matt 16:18 doesn't have polyvalent meanings. Stated in the positive, Matt 16:18 can have polyvalent meanings (similar to the book of Revelation being polyvalent). I happy to concede that this passage can ALSO mean that Church will be built on Peter's faith. It was still Peter who had the faith and who lead the early Church. He was still the same one who preached the first homely at Pentecost, the birthday of the Church. He is still the same one who made the declaration of the Council of Jerusalem. He is still the same one who's bones were found buried underneath St Peter's Basilica at the Vatican.

Apparently, they build the Church upon (literally) Peter and his faith.

The Faith, not the man, yes.

Oldbear83 said:

---

The Faith, not the man, yes.

---

We will have to agree to disagree. I said that it can ALSO be about Peter's faith.

But even St Cyprian of Carthage in the 3rd century that Matt 16:18 referred to Peter, himself.


Who was the first pope (or bishop of Rome) and how did you come up with that person/date?

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The Faith, not the man, yes.

---

We will have to agree to disagree. I said that it can ALSO be about Peter's faith.

But even St Cyprian of Carthage in the 3rd century that Matt 16:18 referred to Peter, himself.


Who was the first pope (or bishop of Rome) and how did you come up with that person/date?

---

See, that's your mistake. Focus on Christ, not some man.

Popes are IMIO sinful. A few proved worthy servants of Christ, many others did a great deal of evil.

Much like the Kings of Israel.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The Faith, not the man, yes.

---

We will have to agree to disagree. I said that it can ALSO be about Peter's faith.

But even St Cyprian of Carthage in the 3rd century that Matt 16:18 referred to Peter, himself.


Who was the first pope (or bishop of Rome) and how did you come up with that person/date?

---

The church in Rome was led by a plurality of elders, not a single bishop, until 150 AD. Peter could not have been the "pope" as Roman Catholics define it. Peter was retroactively designated as "pope" by Roman Catholics long after he died, in order to create an office that traced back to the beginning and went along in succession, which carried along with it the same supreme authority Peter had (none of which are biblical). If you had told him he was the supreme leader of all the church, he wouldn't have known what the heck you were talking about. Peter only refers to himself as a "fellow elder" in 1 Peter 5:1.

Where is the "pope" in Jesus' message to the seven churches in Revelation? It would seem that the authority traced from Jesus straight to the individual elders of each church. There is no office of "pope" mentioned or alluded to at all. Neither do any of the other apostles mention it in their letters as well. Strange, for it being the highest office in all the land of Christendom, isn't it?

Oldbear83 said:

---

See, that's your mistake. Focus on Christ, not some man.

Popes are IMIO sinful. A few proved worthy servants of Christ, many others did a great deal of evil.

Much like the Kings of Israel.

---

OK, thank you! We're getting somewhere now.

You have brought up two points.

1. Building on Christ, not the man. Good point.

Of course, Christ is the Church. He is the head and we are the body - Eph 1:22-23 -

And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

And the Catholic Church will shout, "AMEN!"

But Christ isn't here with us on the earth right now. He left a representative to run his Church. We argue that he made the representative, Peter. When he passed, they appointed the next bishop of Rome. That list was given to us by Irenaeus in the second century

2. Popes did a great deal of evil.
YEP! They have. Catholics will fully admit this. They are NOT impeccable. They are sinners, just like all of us. Pope JPII went to confession every week. (I try to go one a month.)

Having said that, for the most part they are very HOLY men. It the nearly 2000-year history, there have been 10, maybe 12 truly BAD popes out of the 267 popes. That's approximately 4% have been evil.

Jesus hand-picked his apostles and still had a bad apple - about 8.3% evil.

On the other hand, 81 of those are considered Saints in the Church and another 13 are in process (they are waiting on miracles for proof that they are in heaven.)

This doesn't mean that the Church itself is bad, just that it has some bad characters in it. Name me a single organization that doesn't contain some bad people.

If it is comprised of humans, it will. That's our fallen nature.

" 81 of those are considered Saints in the Church and another 13 are in process (they are waiting on miracles for proof that they are in heaven.)"

The problem is that your denomination is deciding something only God has the right to decide.

And before I go on, you're right: Every large group has its great, good, bad, and ... really bad among them.

But that's my problem with Popes. It's one thing to have someone in charge of leading your group, but claiming your group leader is the leader for all of Christendom is hubris, and will lead to bad things.

That's why I compared the Popes to the Kings of Israel.

Consider how God warned the people of Israel not to follow a king. The people demanded one anyway, which led us to Saul and everyone after him.

Same thing with the popes.

A plain reading of Acts shows that the non-title leadership of the Apostles was effective and in line with Christ's will and teaching.

With that said, I again agree that every group should test their practices and doctrines against Scripture.

Thanks.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The Faith, not the man, yes.

---

We will have to agree to disagree. I said that it can ALSO be about Peter's faith.

But even St Cyprian of Carthage in the 3rd century that Matt 16:18 referred to Peter, himself.


Who was the first pope (or bishop of Rome) and how did you come up with that person/date?

---

See, that's your mistake. Focus on Christ, not some man.

Popes are IMIO sinful. A few proved worthy servants of Christ, many others did a great deal of evil.

Much like the Kings of Israel.

---

The focus is always Christ. But looking at the lives of those who have followed him teach us valuable lessons about how to be a good disciple. Let me ask you, why is it that protestantism is 100% onboard with looking for such lessons in the lives of people in the Old Testament, but suddenly develop 1900 years of amnesia after the book of Acts?

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The Faith, not the man, yes.

---

We will have to agree to disagree. I said that it can ALSO be about Peter's faith.

But even St Cyprian of Carthage in the 3rd century that Matt 16:18 referred to Peter, himself.


Who was the first pope (or bishop of Rome) and how did you come up with that person/date?

---

See, that's your mistake. Focus on Christ, not some man.

Popes are IMIO sinful. A few proved worthy servants of Christ, many others did a great deal of evil.

Much like the Kings of Israel.

---

The focus is always Christ. But looking at the lives of those who have followed him teach us valuable lessons about how to be a good disciple. Let me ask you, why is it that protestantism is 100% onboard with looking for such lessons in the lives of people in the Old Testament, but suddenly develop 1900 years of amnesia after the book of Acts?

---

That is not a correct statement. Protestants do pay attention to the lives and actions of Christians throughout the time after Christ ascended to heaven.

What Christians do not do, is assign ranks or titles to Christians.

For example, I hold C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, Billy Graham and Karol Jozef Wojtyla all in high regard for their works in faith and how many believers they have inspired, but I do not assign titles to them or rank them. I do not pray to them, or ask them to intercede for me, knowing that Christ alone serves in that role.

Such things are dangerous arrogance, and whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, such practices lead to bad ends.

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

Oldbear83 said:

---

" 81 of those are considered Saints in the Church and another 13 are in process (they are waiting on miracles for proof that they are in heaven.)"

The problem is that your denomination is deciding something only God has the right to decide.

---

A couple of point about this.

The Church does NOT decide who is in heaven. That's God's job.

The Catholic Church does believe that anyone that was truly martyred for their faith in Jesus goes to heaven. If someone is in heaven, they are a saint. The first 31 popes were martyred by the Roman Empire because they refused to renounce their faith in Jesus. Imagine getting appointed as pope back then. You, pretty much, knew how that would end. Anyway, I hope that we could have some agreement that any true martyr for the Christian faith goes to heaven and; therefore, are a saint.

In order to be proclaimed a Saint (capital "S") in the Church there are several steps BEFORE the Pope, (the Church) will declare that they are a Saint in heaven.

I won't list the process in the interest of time but it involves waiting at least five years after death (to ensure that nothing scandalous is found out about them) and then opening a cause for Sainthood in the Diocese in which that person lived. An extremely thorough investigation is launched into their complete life which includes meeting with people that knew them and researching writings of ANY time.

Their cause advances thru the proper channels and the last two hurdles are the two miracles that must be verified and attributed to their intercession. Essentially, it must be proven that a person (or group of people) requested their intercession.

I know this "freaks" you out a bit because you don't believe that the saints can pray for us. I have a few links for someone to read about some more notable saints in our time:

Pope John Paul II

Mother Teresa

Carlo Acutis (the first 'Millennial' saint)

The Church is one of the biggest skeptics in the world with it comes to miracles authentication. She requires independent verification from medical doctors that do not have knowledge of what they're being asked to investigate. The Church seeks out non-Catholic, medical professionals (protestants, jews, atheists, etc.) to remain objective.

Oldbear83 said:

---

And before I go on, you're right: Every large group has its great, good, bad, and ... really bad among them.

But that's my problem with Popes. It's one thing to have someone in charge of leading your group, but claiming your group leader is the leader for all of Christendom is hubris, and will lead to bad things.

That's why I compared the Popes to the Kings of Israel.

Consider how God warned the people of Israel not to follow a king. The people demanded one anyway, which led us to Saul and everyone after him.

Same thing with the popes.

---

I assume that you have a leader in your Church. You don't seem like the 'megachurch' type of person, so let's say that you have a few hundred to a couple thousand in your church. Someone has to lead that. Imagine trying to lead 1.2 billion people with no leader. We, as humans, are meant to have someone lead our organizations.

Christ instituted a hierarchy just like the OT, which had a hierarchy of Levites, Priests, and the High Priest. So to does the Church with its priests, bishops, and Pope.

Oldbear83 said:

---

" A plain reading of Acts shows that the non-title leadership of the Apostles was effective and in line with Christ's will and teaching.

With that said, I again agree that every group should test their practices and doctrines against Scripture.

Thanks.

---

When we look at Act 1:20,

"For it is written in the Book of Psalms: 'Let his dwelling place be desolate, And let no one live in it'; and, 'Let another take his office.'

The work for office here in the Greek is episkop. In various translations of the bible you will see "office" transalated as "bisho*****", "overseer", or even "leadership."

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" 81 of those are considered Saints in the Church and another 13 are in process (they are waiting on miracles for proof that they are in heaven.)"

The problem is that your denomination is deciding something only God has the right to decide.

---

A couple of point about this.

The Church does NOT decide who is in heaven. That's God's job.

The Catholic Church does believe that anyone that was truly martyred for their faith in Jesus goes to heaven. If someone is in heaven, they are a saint. The first 31 popes were martyred by the Roman Empire because they refused to renounce their faith in Jesus. Imagine getting appointed as pope back then. You, pretty much, knew how that would end. Anyway, I hope that we could have some agreement that any true martyr for the Christian faith goes to heaven and; therefore, are a saint.

In order to be proclaimed a Saint (capital "S") in the Church there are several steps BEFORE the Pope, (the Church) will declare that they are a Saint in heaven.

I won't list the process in the interest of time but it involves waiting at least five years after death (to ensure that nothing scandalous is found out about them) and then opening a cause for Sainthood in the Diocese in which that person lived. An extremely thorough investigation is launched into their complete life which includes meeting with people that knew them and researching writings of ANY time.

Their cause advances thru the proper channels and the last two hurdles are the two miracles that must be verified and attributed to their intercession. Essentially, it must be proven that a person (or group of people) requested their intercession.

I know this "freaks" you out a bit because you don't believe that the saints can pray for us. I have a few links for someone to read about some more notable saints in our time:

Pope John Paul II

Mother Teresa

Carlo Acutis (the first 'Millennial' saint)

The Church is one of the biggest skeptics in the world with it comes to miracles authentication. She requires independent verification from medical doctors that do not have knowledge of what they're being asked to investigate. The Church seeks out non-Catholic, medical professionals (protestants, jews, atheists, etc.) to remain objective.

Oldbear83 said:

---

And before I go on, you're right: Every large group has its great, good, bad, and ... really bad among them.

But that's my problem with Popes. It's one thing to have someone in charge of leading your group, but claiming your group leader is the leader for all of Christendom is hubris, and will lead to bad things.

That's why I compared the Popes to the Kings of Israel.

Consider how God warned the people of Israel not to follow a king. The people demanded one anyway, which led us to Saul and everyone after him.

Same thing with the popes.

---

I assume that you have a leader in your Church. You don't seem like the 'megachurch' type of person, so let's say that you have a few hundred to a couple thousand in your church. Someone has to lead that. Imagine trying to lead 1.2 billion people with no leader. We, as humans, are meant to have someone lead our organizations.

Christ instituted a hierarchy just like the OT, which had a hierarchy of Levites, Priests, and the High Priest. So to does the Church with its priests, bishops, and Pope.

Oldbear83 said:

---

" A plain reading of Acts shows that the non-title leadership of the Apostles was effective and in line with Christ's will and teaching.

With that said, I again agree that every group should test their practices and doctrines against Scripture.

Thanks.

---

When we look at Act 1:20,

"For it is written in the Book of Psalms: 'Let his dwelling place be desolate, And let no one live in it'; and, 'Let another take his office.'

The work for office here in the Greek is episkop. In various translations of the bible you will see "office" transalated as "bisho*****", "overseer", or even "leadership."

---

What a clear reminder that any text yanked out of context is merely a pretext. Thank you.

My pastor does not make political statements as the Pope does.

My deacons do not call themselves 'princes' as Cardinals do, nor do they dress like royalty.

canoso said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" 81 of those are considered Saints in the Church and another 13 are in process (they are waiting on miracles for proof that they are in heaven.)"

The problem is that your denomination is deciding something only God has the right to decide.

---

A couple of point about this.

The Church does NOT decide who is in heaven. That's God's job.

The Catholic Church does believe that anyone that was truly martyred for their faith in Jesus goes to heaven. If someone is in heaven, they are a saint. The first 31 popes were martyred by the Roman Empire because they refused to renounce their faith in Jesus. Imagine getting appointed as pope back then. You, pretty much, knew how that would end. Anyway, I hope that we could have some agreement that any true martyr for the Christian faith goes to heaven and; therefore, are a saint.

In order to be proclaimed a Saint (capital "S") in the Church there are several steps BEFORE the Pope, (the Church) will declare that they are a Saint in heaven.

I won't list the process in the interest of time but it involves waiting at least five years after death (to ensure that nothing scandalous is found out about them) and then opening a cause for Sainthood in the Diocese in which that person lived. An extremely thorough investigation is launched into their complete life which includes meeting with people that knew them and researching writings of ANY time.

Their cause advances thru the proper channels and the last two hurdles are the two miracles that must be verified and attributed to their intercession. Essentially, it must be proven that a person (or group of people) requested their intercession.

I know this "freaks" you out a bit because you don't believe that the saints can pray for us. I have a few links for someone to read about some more notable saints in our time:

Pope John Paul II

Mother Teresa

Carlo Acutis (the first 'Millennial' saint)

The Church is one of the biggest skeptics in the world with it comes to miracles authentication. She requires independent verification from medical doctors that do not have knowledge of what they're being asked to investigate. The Church seeks out non-Catholic, medical professionals (protestants, jews, atheists, etc.) to remain objective.

Oldbear83 said:

---

And before I go on, you're right: Every large group has its great, good, bad, and ... really bad among them.

But that's my problem with Popes. It's one thing to have someone in charge of leading your group, but claiming your group leader is the leader for all of Christendom is hubris, and will lead to bad things.

That's why I compared the Popes to the Kings of Israel.

Consider how God warned the people of Israel not to follow a king. The people demanded one anyway, which led us to Saul and everyone after him.

Same thing with the popes.

---

I assume that you have a leader in your Church. You don't seem like the 'megachurch' type of person, so let's say that you have a few hundred to a couple thousand in your church. Someone has to lead that. Imagine trying to lead 1.2 billion people with no leader. We, as humans, are meant to have someone lead our organizations.

Christ instituted a hierarchy just like the OT, which had a hierarchy of Levites, Priests, and the High Priest. So to does the Church with its priests, bishops, and Pope.

Oldbear83 said:

---

" A plain reading of Acts shows that the non-title leadership of the Apostles was effective and in line with Christ's will and teaching.

With that said, I again agree that every group should test their practices and doctrines against Scripture.

Thanks.

---

When we look at Act 1:20,

"For it is written in the Book of Psalms: 'Let his dwelling place be desolate, And let no one live in it'; and, 'Let another take his office.'

The work for office here in the Greek is episkop. In various translations of the bible you will see "office" transalated as "bisho*****", "overseer", or even "leadership."

---

What a clear reminder that any text yanked out of context is merely a pretext.

---

.... for a prooftext to support anything they want next.