Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What is the biblical justification for Peter as the first Pope?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    1. Whereas Peter demonstrated leadership with the Jews it was Paul whom God primarily used for the Gentiles.
    for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:8, NASB)
    Yes, Peter's main focus was the Jews, just as Paul's main focus was the Gentiles, however, this does not mean that each of them were to preach 'exclusively' to their respective focuses. Paul preached to the Jews whenever he found them.

    2. Peter is not given supremacy above all other apostles.
    and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. (Galatians 2:9, NASB)
    That's literally the only verse that does that. Every single other verse, and I mean 'every' single one, concerning Peter always names him first, and even though he is not named first in this case, he clearly still has prominance over the others when considering the context:

    Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days.I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother. Gal. 1:18 -19
    On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. 8 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. Gal. 2:7-8
    3. There is no mention of a "Pope" in the list of church offices.
    And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. (1 Corinthians 12:28, NASB)
    There is also no mention of a priest, or deacon, or the trinity, by name in the Bible. However, the position is clearly taught.

    4. Paul labored more than all the apostles.
    But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. (1 Corinthians 15:10, NASB)
    What's your point? Is amount of labor equal to the amount of authority you have, or something?

    5. In his epistle Peter does not make a claim for supremacy as Pope.
    Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed (1 Peter 5:1, NASB)
    The Pope is also a bishop, so this is not a problem.

    6. The decision made by James was authoritative at the "Jerusalem Council".
    Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles (Acts 15:19, NASB)
    Well, he 'was' Bishop of Jerusalem, however this acknowledgement:

    {15:14} Simon has explained in what manner God first visited, so as to take from the Gentiles a people to his name.
    Shows that Peter ultimately confirmed the decision.

    7. The right to bind and loose given to Peter is also given to the other Apostles.
    "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:19, NASB)
    Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. (Matthew 18:18, NASB)
    I know, however, it was given to Peter first. However, Peter was also given the keys to the kingdom, as well as other powers unique to him.

    8. Out of curiosity why aren't Popes allowed to be married since Peter was married?
    When Jesus came into Peter's home, He saw his mother-in-law lying sick in bed with a fever. (Matthew 8:14, NASB)
    Priestly celibacy, while it has it roots in the Bible, certainly, was not instituted yet. Besides, Peter didn't know he was going to be Pope until after he got married.

    9. What is the biblical justification for Peter as the first Pope?
    http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/...r-petrine.html

    All these.
    Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

    -Thomas Aquinas

    I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

    -Hernando Cortez

    What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

    -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

    Comment


    • #47
      TT, in the future, would you please consider including a link back to the post you're replying to? That way people don't have to look for it.

      ETA: Ah, it's the OP. The poster is banned, so he won't be replying.
      Last edited by One Bad Pig; 09-10-2014, 04:23 PM.
      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
      sigpic
      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
        TT, in the future, would you please consider including a link back to the post you're replying to? That way people don't have to look for it.

        ETA: Ah, it's the OP. The poster is banned, so he won't be replying.
        Yeah, I didn't see this thread before now....at least, I don't remember it. So I just replied to the points.
        Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

        -Thomas Aquinas

        I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

        -Hernando Cortez

        What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

        -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

        Comment


        • #49
          I'll respond to the responses I take issue with.
          Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
          Every single verse [except for Gal 2:9], and I mean 'every' single one, concerning Peter always names him first, and even though he is not named first in this case, he clearly still has prominance over the others when considering the context [Gal 1:17-18, 2:7-8].
          The Apostle Peter clearly had prominence, yes. That is not equivalent to having authority over them.
          [There is no mention of a Pope in the Bible.]
          There is also no mention of a priest, or deacon, or the trinity, by name in the Bible. However, the position is clearly taught.
          There are seven deacons mentioned by name in the Bible. The positions of priest (presbyter or elder) and bishop are clearly referenced in the Bible, but are not clearly delineated. The Trinity, though not referred to by the term, is fairly clearly taught. A universal pontiff, however? Not as far as I can tell.
          Well, [James] 'was' Bishop of Jerusalem, however this acknowledgement: [Acts 15:14] Shows that Peter ultimately confirmed the decision.
          No, it doesn't. Here's the context: in vv. 7-11, after much debate, Peter relates his experience with Cornelius. In v. 12, Paul and Barnabas relate their experience with preaching among the Gentiles. In vv. 13-21, James agrees with them and states HIS decision in vv. 19-20 (not Peter's). In v. 22, the rest of those present consent to the decision. Everyone confirmed the decision.
          [Mat. 16:19, 18:18]
          I know, however, it was given to Peter first. However, Peter was also given the keys to the kingdom, as well as other powers unique to him.
          No he wasn't. The powers mentioned in 18:18 are exactly the same as in 16:19. The same concept in different words is repeated in John 20:23.
          [What is the justification for Peter as the first Pope?]
          http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/...r-petrine.html

          All these.
          Many of these are merely evidence that Peter was a prominent apostle. I could make a similar, though shorter, list for Paul, who even famously took Peter to task. Number 32 is flat wrong, as I explained above. Evidence of prominence is far from proving he was the 'universal pontiff.' Maybe you could pick a couple you think are especially strong for me to consider - I'm not impressed with the list at first glance.
          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
          sigpic
          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

          Comment


          • #50
            The Apostle Peter clearly had prominence, yes. That is not equivalent to having authority over them.
            Yeah, I know, however, it is supporting evidence of primacy.

            There are seven deacons mentioned by name in the Bible. The positions of priest (presbyter or elder) and bishop are clearly referenced in the Bible, but are not clearly delineated. The Trinity, though not referred to by the term, is fairly clearly taught. A universal pontiff, however? Not as far as I can tell.
            Eh, well, that kind of amounts to question begging. Jesus gave Peter the keys to kingdom, and told him that he was the foundation on which he would build his Church. That seems pretty clearly like he's putting Peter in charge.

            No, it doesn't. Here's the context: in vv. 7-11, after much debate, Peter relates his experience with Cornelius. In v. 12, Paul and Barnabas relate their experience with preaching among the Gentiles. In vv. 13-21, James agrees with them and states HIS decision in vv. 19-20 (not Peter's). In v. 22, the rest of those present consent to the decision. Everyone confirmed the decision.
            Not correct. By standing up after the debate, to deliver his speech, before all the apostles, he engaged in a prominent physical gesture asserting his authority over the others. The silence after his speech also indicates the finality of it, no one disputes his speech or the right to make it. Of course, none of this is hard evidence, it's simply supporting evidence, the main evidence is the wording Peter used in his speech. If Peter was merely a witness, just as the other apostles, why did he not appeal to his own experience, alone, as the other apostles did? Instead, he says things such as these:

            after much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe 15:7
            God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 15:8-9
            Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?
            It's readily apparent that Peter saw himself as the prime authority of God over the rest of them, especially concerning this part:
            God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel
            The other statements you 'might' be able to explain away on their own, with them together, it would be a lot harder to do so, but maybe so, but when combined with this clear, strong statement of authority, that is, that is, that God chose Peter to relay the message of God through his own lips, with the exclusion of 'all' the other apostles in said statement, when put in the context of debating an important decision regarding the faith, it's simply not possible. Not to mention the previous statements, where Peter relays the actions of God through him, and what he knows would be the will of God in such a situation, even charging the others with testing God, once again, contrary to all the others in the meeting, who simply stated their own, personal experience, and/or discussed what to do in such a matter. Peter's prominence as authority is so, that James even refers to his decision as validation for his own tract, with the previously mentioned verse:
            {15:14} Simon has explained in what manner God first visited, so as to take from the Gentiles a people to his name.
            James is merely suggesting a way of going about what Peter had already expressed, he was not making an authoritative statement.

            No he wasn't. The powers mentioned in 18:18 are exactly the same as in 16:19. The same concept in different words is repeated in John 20:23.
            I was referring to the powers gifted to Peter by receiving the Keys to the Kingdom.

            Many of these are merely evidence that Peter was a prominent apostle. I could make a similar, though shorter, list for Paul, who even famously took Peter to task. Number 32 is flat wrong, as I explained above. Evidence of prominence is far from proving he was the 'universal pontiff.' Maybe you could pick a couple you think are especially strong for me to consider - I'm not impressed with the list at first glance.
            As I said, alone, prominence does not support primacy, but when combined with the verses that do, they make convincing supporting evidence. I've already refuted your analysis on Number 32, so that's good as well.
            Last edited by TimelessTheist; 09-10-2014, 10:09 PM.
            Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

            -Thomas Aquinas

            I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

            -Hernando Cortez

            What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

            -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
              Yeah, I know, however, it is supporting evidence of primacy.
              of honor, sure. Authority? Only if you read it into the text.
              Eh, well, that kind of amounts to question begging. Jesus gave Peter the keys to kingdom, and told him that he was the foundation on which he would build his Church. That seems pretty clearly like he's putting Peter in charge.
              This is a matter of interpretation. There is a long history of interpreting Mat. 16:18 as referring to Peter's confession. Based on the biblical texts already cited, the keys don't give Peter any more power than was given to the other apostles.
              Not correct. By standing up after the debate, to deliver his speech, before all the apostles, he engaged in a prominent physical gesture asserting his authority over the others. The silence after his speech also indicates the finality of it, no one disputes his speech or the right to make it. Of course, none of this is hard evidence, it's simply supporting evidence, the main evidence is the wording Peter used in his speech. If Peter was merely a witness, just as the other apostles, why did he not appeal to his own experience, alone, as the other apostles did? Instead, he says things such as these: [Acts 15:7-10]

              It's readily apparent that Peter saw himself as the prime authority of God over the rest of them, especially concerning this part: [Acts 15:7b]

              The other statements you 'might' be able to explain away on their own, with them together, it would be a lot harder to do so, but maybe so, but when combined with this clear, strong statement of authority, that is, that is, that God chose Peter to relay the message of God through his own lips, with the exclusion of 'all' the other apostles in said statement, when put in the context of debating an important decision regarding the faith, it's simply not possible. Not to mention the previous statements, where Peter relays the actions of God through him, and what he knows would be the will of God in such a situation, even charging the others with testing God, once again, contrary to all the others in the meeting, who simply stated their own, personal experience, and/or discussed what to do in such a matter. Peter's prominence as authority is so, that James even refers to his decision as validation for his own tract, with the previously mentioned verse: [Acts 15:14]

              James is merely suggesting a way of going about what Peter had already expressed, he was not making an authoritative statement.
              Peter is relating history, not claiming authority here. And he was certainly not the final person to stand up before everybody. After Peter related his testimony, Paul and Barnabas related theirs. James then validated their testimony and pronounced his decision, which was subsequently ratified by everybody.
              I was referring to the powers gifted to Peter by receiving the Keys to the Kingdom.
              The same powers given to every other apostle (Mat. 18:18).
              As I said, alone, prominence does not support primacy, but when combined with the verses that do, they make convincing supporting evidence. I've already refuted your analysis on Number 32, so that's good as well.
              No you haven't. Please fail better next time - I was at least expecting a challenging argument.
              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
              sigpic
              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

              Comment


              • #52
                of honor, sure. Authority? Only if you read it into the text.
                Not really. Prominence is linked with authority. Though, remember, I said it was only 'supporting' evidence.

                This is a matter of interpretation. There is a long history of interpreting Mat. 16:18 as referring to Peter's confession. Based on the biblical texts already cited, the keys don't give Peter any more power than was given to the other apostles.
                There's also a long history of refuting that interpretation, as well. And, eh, yes, the keys give him powers, according to the context of Isaiah 22, and many other verses.

                Peter is relating history, not claiming authority here. And he was certainly not the final person to stand up before everybody. After Peter related his testimony, Paul and Barnabas related theirs. James then validated their testimony and pronounced his decision, which was subsequently ratified by everybody.
                Well, first off, no one actually stood up before anyone else other than Peter. Paul spoke, but he didn't stand up. Secondly, no, Peter was not just relating history. He wasn't simply stating his own experiences, he was stating the direct actions of, and what he knew was the actual will of God himself, even going so far as to accuse the others of "testing God" if they went against his decision. How exactly could he get away with doing that if they were all the same authority? James cited Peter's decision as validation for his own tract, not Paul's, or Barnabus', or anyone else's, and even then, his tract only suggested a way of going about what Peter had already said. Not to mention that Paul and Barnabus never even stated any decision of their own, they simply spoke of the signs and miracles Gid preformed before them.

                Of course the 'entire' council agreed on the decision, as with every council, but Peter clearly had authority over the rest of them.

                The same powers given to every other apostle (Mat. 18:18).
                They Keys to the Kingdom were given to every single apostle? Gee, I must have missed that part.

                No you haven't. Please fail better next time - I was at least expecting a challenging argument.
                And I 'was' expecting you to pretend like half of the points I made don't exist, just as you did before. So, good job on being consistent, at least.
                Last edited by TimelessTheist; 09-11-2014, 08:16 PM.
                Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                -Thomas Aquinas

                I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                -Hernando Cortez

                What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                  There is also no mention of a priest, or deacon, or the trinity, by name in the Bible. However, the position is clearly taught.
                  "Deacon" appears in six verses, Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:8-13, Romans 16:1, and more.


                  "Pope," according to Wikipedia, comes from the Greek child's word for "father." So, Peter could have been called Pope in the Bible. The fact that he was never explicitly called that, should be weighed together with the other relevant facts, IMO.
                  The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                  [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                    "Deacon" appears in six verses, Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:8-13, Romans 16:1, and more.


                    "Pope," according to Wikipedia, comes from the Greek child's word for "father." So, Peter could have been called Pope in the Bible. The fact that he was never explicitly called that, should be weighed together with the other relevant facts, IMO.
                    Alright, alright, I was wrong about deacon not being mentioned in the Bible. Though, perhaps the actual name for the position was formed later, just as the name 'Trinity' was not written in the Bible.
                    Last edited by TimelessTheist; 09-12-2014, 11:37 AM.
                    Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                    -Thomas Aquinas

                    I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                    -Hernando Cortez

                    What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                    -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                      Not really. Prominence is linked with authority. Though, remember, I said it was only 'supporting' evidence.
                      Paul is arguably more prominent post-Resurrection than Peter. Paul also withstood Peter to his face (Gal. 2:11), and was adamant that what he taught came from Jesus Himself, not Peter or the other apostles (Gal. 1:11,17). Peter was an apostle, not the apostle though. Even in the age to come, Peter will be one of twelve apostles sitting on thrones of judgment (Mat. 19:28). And why is this asserted leadership position passed down at Rome, and not in Jerusalem or Antioch, which at least have Biblical support for his activity there? Peter did not even found the church in Rome, and could not have been there long (by the account in Acts, Paul was there first).
                      There's also a long history of refuting that interpretation, as well.
                      Just making sure you were aware of it.
                      And, eh, yes, the keys give him powers, according to the context of Isaiah 22, and many other verses.
                      Isaiah 22? That's a bit of a stretch. Jesus explains what the 'keys' are for in Mat. 16:19 - binding and loosing. The other apostles can do that as well (Mat. 18:18).
                      Well, first off, no one actually stood up before anyone else other than Peter. Paul spoke, but he didn't stand up. Secondly, no, Peter was not just relating history. He wasn't simply stating his own experiences, he was stating the direct actions of, and what he knew was the actual will of God himself, even going so far as to accuse the others of "testing God" if they went against his decision. How exactly could he get away with doing that if they were all the same authority? James cited Peter's decision as validation for his own tract, not Paul's, or Barnabus', or anyone else's, and even then, his tract only suggested a way of going about what Peter had already said. Not to mention that Paul and Barnabus never even stated any decision of their own, they simply spoke of the signs and miracles Gid preformed before them.

                      Of course the 'entire' council agreed on the decision, as with every council, but Peter clearly had authority over the rest of them.
                      The only thing 'clear' here is your tenditious reading of the passage in question. Your interpretation of some parts is hyper-literal "only Peter must've stood up because he's the only one mentioned as doing so" but you gloss over parts that don't support your thesis (since when is "I have decided" only a suggestion?). You don't know Peter as well as you think if you believe he would only say something like that from a position of authority. This is the same guy who tried to rebuke his Messiah (Mat. 16:22).
                      They Keys to the Kingdom were given to every single apostle? Gee, I must have missed that part.
                      The powers associated with them certainly were.
                      For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

                      Maybe the other apostles' authority was even greater, since they could bind and loose without even needing a key.


                      And I 'was' expecting you to pretend like half of the points I made don't exist, just as you did before. So, good job on being consistent, at least.
                      Make some points worth discussing, and I'll discuss them.
                      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                      sigpic
                      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                        "Pope," according to Wikipedia, comes from the Greek child's word for "father." So, Peter could have been called Pope in the Bible. The fact that he was never explicitly called that, should be weighed together with the other relevant facts, IMO.
                        My Jewish Annotated NT notes that the term wasn't used for the bishop of Rome until a couple hundred years after Peter. It's not mentioned there, but I know that the bishop of Alexandria was also traditionally called "pope." That is why the leader of the Coptic church is called that even today.
                        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                        sigpic
                        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Paul is arguably more prominent post-Resurrection than Peter. Paul also withstood Peter to his face (Gal. 2:11), and was adamant that what he taught came from Jesus Himself, not Peter or the other apostles (Gal. 1:11,17). Peter was an apostle, not the apostle though. Even in the age to come, Peter will be one of twelve apostles sitting on thrones of judgment (Mat. 19:28). And why is this asserted leadership position passed down at Rome, and not in Jerusalem or Antioch, which at least have Biblical support for his activity there? Peter did not even found the church in Rome, and could not have been there long (by the account in Acts, Paul was there first).
                          Once again, I said that his prominence, alone, was not hard evidence.

                          Isaiah 22? That's a bit of a stretch. Jesus explains what the 'keys' are for in Mat. 16:19 - binding and loosing. The other apostles can do that as well (Mat. 18:18).
                          As well as many other verses. Keys are used in the Bible as symbols of authority, Peter received the Keys, and no one else did. What does that tell you?

                          The only thing 'clear' here is your tenditious reading of the passage in question. Your interpretation of some parts is hyper-literal "only Peter must've stood up because he's the only one mentioned as doing so"
                          Once again, I said that wasn't hard evidence.

                          gloss over parts that don't support your thesis (since when is "I have decided" only a suggestion?).
                          Saying "I decided" doesn't necessarily make said decision neither authoritative, nor different from a previous declaration. Peter stated his analysis, and James stated the way he thinks they should go about doing it, even going as far as to cite Peter in his own analysis. 'Sides, even if his decision was different, no one ever said no one in a Church Council can't have any dissent.

                          You don't know Peter as well as you think if you believe he would only say something like that from a position of authority. This is the same guy who tried to rebuke his Messiah (Mat. 16:22).
                          It wasn't the fact that he made authoritative statements about God's will, or even charged the others with "testing God" if they disagreed with his analysis, it's that no one objected to him saying such things, not even Paul, who rebuked Peter in the past. If he was the same authority as everyone else, he shouldn't have been able to get away with saying such things, especially charging the others with "testing God".

                          The powers associated with them certainly were.
                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

                          Make some points worth discussing, and I'll discuss them.
                          Just did.
                          Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                          -Thomas Aquinas

                          I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                          -Hernando Cortez

                          What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                          -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Timeless Theist, you asserted that many verses in the Bible support the notion of keys as symbols of authority. Matthew 16:19 aside, there are 9 verses that contain "key" or "keys": Isaiah 22:22, which OBP said is questionable at least; Judges 3:25; 1 Chronicles 9:27; Isaiah 33:6; Luke 11:52; Revelations 1:18, 3:7, 9:1, 20:1. Revelations 3:7 does have "the key of David." Otherwise, overall IMO, not impressive evidence. "Key to death and Hades"!?

                            eta: www.biblegateway.com search of the NIV
                            Last edited by Truthseeker; 09-13-2014, 07:06 PM.
                            The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                            [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                              Once again, I said that his prominence, alone, was not hard evidence.
                              Thanks for "pretending the points I made don't exist."
                              As well as many other verses. Keys are used in the Bible as symbols of authority, Peter received the Keys, and no one else did. What does that tell you?
                              That you're pointedly ignoring the point I'm making. The other apostles received the exact same authority to bind and loose associated with said keys.
                              Once again, I said that wasn't hard evidence.
                              Yeah, you claimed that only Peter's words were hard evidence. What justification do you have for treating his words differently?
                              Saying "I decided" doesn't necessarily make said decision neither authoritative, nor different from a previous declaration. Peter stated his analysis, and James stated the way he thinks they should go about doing it, even going as far as to cite Peter in his own analysis.
                              After Peter stated his opinion, James made the decision. He didn't say, "I think we should do this," He said, "I have made the decision that this is what we'll do." That is authority being wielded, by James. You don't like that conclusion, which is why you keep trying to soften the force of James' words.
                              'Sides, even if his decision was different, no one ever said no one in a Church Council can't have any dissent.
                              Red herring.
                              It wasn't the fact that he made authoritative statements about God's will, or even charged the others with "testing God" if they disagreed with his analysis, it's that no one objected to him saying such things, not even Paul, who rebuked Peter in the past.
                              It is not a fact that he made authoritative statements; you're reading that into the text. He made statements, Just like he did in Mat. 16:22.
                              If he was the same authority as everyone else, he shouldn't have been able to get away with saying such things, especially charging the others with "testing God".
                              If the others in authority agreed with him, then he could absolutely have been able to get away with saying such things. It is apparent from the outcome that they did.
                              [quote]
                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
                              Wiki? You do know what keys are for, right?
                              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                              sigpic
                              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Thanks for "pretending the points I made don't exist."
                                I ignored your Rome rant because it was off topic, but if you insist, no, no one's suggesting that Peter single-handedly founded the Church of Rome, although he 'did' lay down the supporting foundations of it. Although, yes, it's historical fact that both Paul and Peter, took up permanent residence in, and eventually died in Rome. We also have the evidence in the documents of the Early Church Councils to prove Roman Primacy.

                                That you're pointedly ignoring the point I'm making. The other apostles received the exact same authority to bind and loose associated with said keys.
                                Yes, I know, but they did not receive the actual keys, and thus, the authority that goes with said keys.

                                Yeah, you claimed that only Peter's words were hard evidence. What justification do you have for treating his words differently?
                                Because the act of standing up isn't very good evidence for authority by itself...

                                After Peter stated his opinion, James made the decision. He didn't say, "I think we should do this," He said, "I have made the decision that this is what we'll do." That is authority being wielded, by James. You don't like that conclusion, which is why you keep trying to soften the force of James' words.
                                Which, if you'll stop ignoring my points, is exactly what I said. James stated his judgment on how they would go about doing what Peter already said they should do. It seems like you're trying to say that James made an statement authorative to the Council, in which case, you just refuted your own argument, as your argument states that they're all supposed to have the same authority. I also note that you still didn't respond to the fact that James both:
                                1) Referred to Peter's statement in his own statement.
                                2) Was only stating a way they should go about doing what Peter already said they should do.

                                Red herring.
                                That's not a red herring.

                                It is not a fact that he made authoritative statements; you're reading that into the text. He made statements, Just like he did in Mat. 16:22.
                                Oh, man, I must have just misread the part where Jesus calls Peter Satan just a verse later for promising such a thing, my bad. Also, how is proclaiming that you know the will of God, and accusing others of "testing God" if they go against you 'not' authoritative?

                                If the others in authority agreed with him, then he could absolutely have been able to get away with saying such things. It is apparent from the outcome that they did.
                                So....if the others in authority agreed with his assessment, then they would let him get away with claiming authority over them as well? That doesn't follow.

                                Wiki? You do know what keys are for, right?
                                Yes, I'm saying that the "binding and loosening" is not the 'only' power that comes with the Keys.
                                Last edited by TimelessTheist; 09-14-2014, 05:12 PM.
                                Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                                -Thomas Aquinas

                                I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                                -Hernando Cortez

                                What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                                -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X