Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Very good job pointing out those distinctions; nevertheless, Jesus never told Peter that He would build His church upon [B]him (this is perhaps the most important distinction of all). These links should elucidate my point more emphatically (it would behoove you to read them):http://www.gotquestions.org/Peter-first-pope.html
http://www.gospelway.com/religiousgroups/peter_as_pope.php [/B]
Interesting, however I'm not sure what your "sources" actually claim. The first one seems to state that Jesus never gave authority to Peter...thats it...an entire article to say that. However, I imagine the writer said that because they, like you, misunderstood the translation of Petra and Petros... so because they mistakenly believed Jesus was not calling Peter the rock, he was not giving him any authority.
However, we have discovered that Peter does indeed mean rock and Matthew does indeed show Jesus giving Peter authority. "What you bind on earth I shall bind in heaven, what you loosen on earth I shall loosen in heaven"
So the first page- Jesus never says Peter has authority...oh yes he does! We just proved it right here by showing the true translations of Peter!
Page 2, It talks about the Church having a divine foundation- Jesus...this is in fact true yes, Jesus is the Head of the Church however he left behind a visible representative- The Pope. The Pope is only Head of the Church in the sense that he is the Vicar of Christ.
The page then goes over the Peter name thing, but we have settled that.
It then says Peter and the Pope are unfit Vicars of Christ...interesting, it talks about the "Get behind me Satan" incident and the denial three times. Interesting, but who did Jesus then appear to and tell to shepherd the flock..and the APOSTLES! (PRIMACY!!!!) ?
The "bad Popes"? Well, as Jesus said, "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." So...the continuity of Apostolic Succession was never lost...indeed, Peter denied Christ three times, but he was forgiven and maintained his position...so too did the Papacy.
🙂
Please respond to that argument at some Point JIA.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Interesting, however I'm not sure what your "sources" actually claim. The first one seems to state that Jesus never gave authority to Peter...thats it...an entire article to say that. However, I imagine the writer said that because they, like you, misunderstood the translation of Petra and Petros... so because they mistakenly believed Jesus was not calling Peter the rock, he was not giving him any authority.
Why aren’t you clear what my sources claim? I provided two links, and both of them clearly expounded the facts concerning Peter’s position relative to the other Apostles. You state that the first one seems to convey that Jesus never gave Peter authority. That is not true. Jesus did give Peter authority; however, Jesus never gave Peter authority over other Apostles (this is the key that you appear to keep reading into Matthew 16:18-19, but it is not there). Actually, the first one does state that Peter is the rock that Jesus predicted that He would be (are you sure that you read the article?).
However, we have discovered that Peter does indeed mean rock and Matthew does indeed show Jesus giving Peter authority. "What you bind on earth I shall bind in heaven, what you loosen on earth I shall loosen in heaven"
Jesus tells His (other) disciples the exact same thing in Matthew 18:18, so this explodes your interpretation that Peter was (in my own words) “special,” “singled out,” or “exclusive,” in terms of binding and loosing. I urge you to read Matthew 18:18, go on, you will become enlightened and disabused of wrong teaching.
So the first page- Jesus never says Peter has authority...oh yes he does! We just proved it right here by showing the true translations of Peter!
Again, your emphasis is misplaced. Jesus never states that Peter has primacy (i.e. authority over) any other disciple or Apostle.
Page 2, It talks about the Church having a divine foundation- Jesus...this is in fact true yes, Jesus is the Head of the Church however he left behind a visible representative- The Pope. The Pope is only Head of the Church in the sense that he is the Vicar of Christ.
There is not one iota of Scripture to support your claim that Jesus left behind a pope. The word “pope” does not even appear in the Bible (it was concocted by the Roman Catholic organization). The word “vicar” does not appear in the Bible. What have we learned thus far: neither the terms nor concept of papacy appears in Scripture (these are the facts).
The page then goes over the Peter name thing, but we have settled that.
The peter name thing is not critical in the least.
It then says Peter and the Pope are unfit Vicars of Christ...interesting, it talks about the "Get behind me Satan" incident and the denial three times. Interesting, but who did Jesus then appear to and tell to shepherd the flock..and the APOSTLES! (PRIMACY!!!!) ?
Jesus gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors (i.e. shepherds over local flocks), and teachers to minister/perfect the saints (i.e. believers). Peter is not the only pastor, bishop, or overseer in the church—but one of many.
The "bad Popes"? Well, as Jesus said, "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." So...the continuity of Apostolic Succession was never lost...indeed, Peter denied Christ three times, but he was forgiven and maintained his position...so too did the Papacy.
Apostolic Succession was never instituted so you are correct that it was never lost. Again, you have yet to establish that inauguration of the papacy.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But you do. I have asked you a lot of questions that you just deflect.
I must say this again: you don't realize how many posts I endeavor to respond to do you? Some posts require more time and effort to respond to simply because of the nature of the question. It is unfortunate that any delay that I have in responding to a post is construed as reluctance to answer, defeat, or some other negative thing. Trust me, I want to get back to you and everyone else but I am swamped sometimes. I respond to you, AngryManatee, Deja Vu, Da Pittman, Templares, Grand_Moff_Gav, Robtard, Devil King, and several others. It is not easy to return each person especially when many times the response requires much thought and preparation.
Do you follow me Shakyamunison? Try to be more patient and understanding.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I must say this again: you don't realize how many posts I endeavor to respond to do you? Some posts require more time and effort to respond to simply because of the nature of the question. It is unfortunate that any delay that I have in responding to a post is construed as reluctance to answer, defeat, or some other negative thing. Trust me, I want to get back to you and everyone else but I am swamped sometimes. I respond to you, AngryManatee, Deja Vu, Da Pittman, Templares, Grand_Moff_Gav, Robtard, Devil King, and several others. It is not easy to return each person especially when many times the response requires much thought and preparation.Do you follow me Shakyamunison? Try to be more patient and understanding.
😑 So, it is all my fault?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No, I never said nor implied that you were at fault except in the case of accusing me of using tactics (this is just a misconstruing of the situation).
Really? Should I take the time a quote all the times you did exactly what I said?
However, the "I don't care" factor kicks in.
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveWhy aren’t you clear what my sources claim? I provided two links, and both of them clearly expounded the facts concerning Peter’s position relative to the other Apostles. You state that the first one seems to convey that Jesus never gave Peter authority. That is not true. Jesus did give Peter authority; however, Jesus never gave Peter authority over other Apostles (this is the key that you appear to keep reading into Matthew 16:18-19, but it is not there). Actually, the first one does state that Peter is the rock that Jesus predicted that He would be (are you sure that you read the article?).
Jesus tells His (other) disciples the exact same thing in Matthew 18:18, so this explodes your interpretation that Peter was (in my own words) “special,” “singled out,” or “exclusive,” in terms of binding and loosing. I urge you to read Matthew 18:18, go on, you will become enlightened and disabused of wrong teaching.
Peter wasn't special? Why then the name change? In the Old Testament only God was called a rock (bar Abraham ONCE). Christ was not given to meaningless gestures a new name meant that the status of the person was changed. What was this change of status...well you say that Jesus said the same thing to the apostles...he did...but why did he say it to Peter first, why did he say it to Peter ALONE?
Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. As I stated earlier a chief servant or Prime Minister would by given "keys" to symbolise their authority. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).
So, to use your words, Peter is "singled out" when he is given the power to loosen/bind. Then is given "exclusive" and "special" promises- the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveAgain, your emphasis is misplaced. Jesus never states that Peter has primacy (i.e. authority over) any other disciple or Apostle. [/B]
Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me more than these?" (John 21:15), the word "these" referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives.
Again, the Keys point to his special relationship with Christ- he was established as the keeper of those keys and thus, the keeper of the gates to heaven..i.e. access to it.
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveThere is not one iota of Scripture to support your claim that Jesus left behind a pope. The word “pope” does not even appear in the Bible (it was concocted by the Roman Catholic organization). The word “vicar” does not appear in the Bible. What have we learned thus far: neither the terms nor concept of papacy appears in Scripture (these are the facts).
Jesus gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors (i.e. shepherds over local flocks), and teachers to minister/perfect the saints (i.e. believers). Peter is not the only pastor, bishop, or overseer in the church—but one of many.
Correct but only one was given the Keys or told to shepherd the apostles- Peter. Jesus told Peter to let his faith strengthen that of the apostles at the last supper.
There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).
What do the Church Fathers say about Peter then?
Clement of Alexandria [/B]: The blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28] (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).
Tertullian[/B]: For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).
Origen f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens
[i]Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Apostolic Succession was never instituted so you are correct that it was never lost. Again, you have yet to establish that inauguration of the papacy.
Apostolic Succession? Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
P.S You said Pope doesnt appear in the Bible...neither does Trinity but you believe in it.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Really? Should I take the time a quote all the times you did exactly what I said?However, the "I don't care" factor kicks in.
You seem determined to be offended or ill towards me (I don't know why). I thought that I explained the situation as best I could, I guess I am wrong for not having the time to get back to all of your posts.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Peter wasn't special? Why then the name change? In the Old Testament only God was called a rock (bar Abraham ONCE). Christ was not given to meaningless gestures a new name meant that the status of the person was changed. What was this change of status...well you say that Jesus said the same thing to the apostles...he did...but why did he say it to Peter first, why did he say it to Peter ALONE?Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. As I stated earlier a chief servant or Prime Minister would by given "keys" to symbolise their authority. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).
So, to use your words, Peter is "singled out" when he is given the power to loosen/bind. Then is given "exclusive" and "special" promises- the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.
Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me more than these?" (John 21:15), the word "these" referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives.
Again, the Keys point to his special relationship with Christ- he was established as the keeper of those keys and thus, the keeper of the gates to heaven..i.e. access to it.
Correct but only one was given the Keys or told to shepherd the apostles- Peter. Jesus told Peter to let his faith strengthen that of the apostles at the last supper.
There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).
What do the Church Fathers say about Peter then?
Clement of Alexandria
: The blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28] (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).Tertullian[/B]: For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).
Origen [I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens
Apostolic Succession? Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
There you go reading into the text was is conspicuously absent again. Jesus never told Peter to shepherd the Apostles. Jesus was talking about other believers, not the Apostles.
There is no such animal as apostolic succession--you are reaching, and reading into the text was is not there (again, and again). I guess you could make the Scripture mean what you want it to mean (and that is precisely what you are doing).
Again, Jesus told the other Apostles the same thing about binding and loosing (this fact will never go away).
Jesus never told Peter, "Pete, hey man, you are the first P-o-p-e and Vicar, I am going to build my church on you." That is nowhere in the Scriptures.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You seem determined to be offended or ill towards me (I don't know why). I thought that I explained the situation as best I could, I guess I am wrong for not having the time to get back to all of your posts.
I am not offended nor do I feel anything negative toward you, but I do believe that you use diverting tactics when you cannot answer a question. I have had this opinion for a long time now, and I still talk to you. Please do not take this as a disabling criticism.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There you go reading into the text was is conspicuously absent again. Jesus never told Peter to shepherd the Apostles. Jesus was talking about other believers, not the Apostles.
Yes he did, he is put over them over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There is no such animal as apostolic succession--you are reaching, and reading into the text was is not there (again, and again). I guess you could make the Scripture mean what you want it to mean (and that is precisely what you are doing).
The Church Fathers disagree with you.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Again, Jesus told the other Apostles the same thing about binding and loosing (this fact will never go away).
Yes he did...but seperately from Peter, they were not gifted the keys...they share the powers with Peter but lack the authority he had as thieir leader.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Jesus never told Peter, "Pete, hey man, you are the first P-o-p-e and Vicar, I am going to build my church on you." That is nowhere in the Scriptures.
What he said...You are Rock and upon this rock i shall build my Church...I give to you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
I think JIA you are doing a very basic Fundy tactic...covering your ears and going blah blah blah...fact is...the Primary of the Roman Pontiff was accepted by the Church fathers who made your faith, the authority of Peter was seen to pass on to Linus...again they accept this...
Satan has pulled you away from God's Church.
I mean..when did Jesus say...Guys, your gonna write this Bible at some point...well you might not but your followers will...any way what ever you guys say has to be based on this scripute...get it?
No he didn't he said YOU go out and make diciples of all nations...he sent out MEN (lead by Peter) Bishops, Priests Apostles whatever, he never printed off volumes of the Bible and said right, dish these out as you go...he sent PEOPLE...he built his Church on People NOT EVER on Scripture.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Yes he did, he is put over them over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Peter is mentioned with preference at times (I concur with you on that) but so is James and John. Time and time again the Scriptures cite the triplets (Peter, James, and John). In fact, it was to the Apostle John that Jesus appeared on the isle of Patmos (I know Peter was already dead by then). But the point is the vision that John (not Peter) received from the Lord is all recorded in the Book of Revelation (some twenty-two chapters of prophecy, which is nearly three times what Peter wrote). Not to mention John wrote the "Gospel According to John" (Twenty-one chapters about the life, teachings, ministry, trial, crucifixion, and glorious resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ). Hmm...I wonder why Peter wasn't given this important assignment of writing one of the four Gospels? Peter's name is not on even one of the Gospels. There is Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but no Peter (hmm...kinda strange don't you think since he was so important right Grandy?)
The Church Fathers disagree with you.
But…the entire body of Christ (i.e. Christians) disagree with you and the “Church Fathers” because we know what the Scriptures actually state. We don’t read into the text what we want or wish to be there, we take it for what it is.
Yes he did...but seperately from Peter, they were not gifted the keys...they share the powers with Peter but lack the authority he had as thieir leader.
Peter was not “their” leader, but “a” leader among leaders in the early church. This is just how God operates. Someone had to spearhead the church, but not exercise absolute authority over the entire church (ever heard of the “separation of powers?”). Anyhoo, the prerogative of total authority is reserved for Jesus only. God will appoint leaders over local flocks (just as He did with Peter, James, Paul, etc.), but it is completely contrary to Scripture and God’s order to invest total authority in one person, in the church. God just does not do this because of what it can lead do (i.e. cultism such as David Koresh-ism, Jim Jones-ism, polygamist compound-ism, Heaven’s Gate-ism and the like). Peter was a "seeming" pillar (again, I give you that) but so was James and John (go back and read the Scriptures). Don’t have either the time or inclination to look this up? Well, here it is:
Galatians 2:9
And 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.
Uh oh…did you just see that? The triplets were mentioned again, but…but (lip quivers) Peter (or Cephas, it doesn’t matter because it is referring to the same person) was listed second and not first! What is the Roman Catholic Church going to do now?
(Runs for the hills).
I am just kidding. I did that just to show you that Peter was no Pope and that just because he is mentioned first (most of the time) that does not indicate that he somehow wielded supreme authority over any other apostle (the above verse in Galations 2:9 as well as my entire post refutes this wrong thinking).
What he said...You are Rock and upon this rock i shall build my Church...I give to you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
But…notice what is conspicuous in its absence: Jesus never told Peter that He would build His church on Peter. I know you would love for Jesus to have said that but He didn’t (thank God). If Jesus had said,
“You are Peter, and on you, I will build my church.”
Then it would be settled for all eternity. The rock that Jesus was referring to is the rock of revelation of Who Jesus truly is: the Son of the living God (see Matthew 16:16 because it precedes and puts into proper context what Jesus is really saying). Jesus would be a fool to build His church on one fallible, sinful, Christ-disowning man who is in need of the Savior Himself. Jesus did not build His church on a man, but on the reality that He is the Son of the living God. If you don’t believe this then you cannot be saved.
Incidently, Jesus is metaphorically referred to as a “Rock” in the Scriptures:
1 Corinthians 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
(Thank you Holy Spirit for what you have just revealed to me. The Bible is right, you are the true Teacher of the Word of God).
Hey, Grand_Moff_Gav, I believe that the Holy Spirit just revealed something to me that I have never seen before: Nowhere in Scripture is Peter called a rock. (Again, thank you Holy Spirit.) I mean, here I am going back and forth with you Grandy and all along Jesus never even called Peter a rock. Here is what Jesus said to Peter:
Matthew 16:18
And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
Did you catch that!? Jesus simply said,
“…you are Peter and on this rock….”
There is not one word about Peter being the rock that Jesus was referring to. Hence, I submit to you Grandy that Peter is not the rock that Jesus has built His church on. Jesus never called Peter a rock (small or large rock). Jesus simply stated the man’s name and then proceeded to tell the man His plans for establishing His church.
Can you see this Grand_Moff_Gav?
We are the ones who have misinterpreted what Jesus said. It is just a coincidence that Peter’s name means stone or rock, not some God-ordained prophecy that Jesus was announcing for the future. It is no different if Jesus were speaking to you Grandy and He were to say,
“Grand_Moff_Gav, you are Grand and it is going to be a grand moment when I build my church.” It is just a coincidence that your name is Grand in that scenario.
I think JIA you are doing a very basic Fundy tactic...covering your ears and going blah blah blah...fact is...the Primary of the Roman Pontiff was accepted by the Church fathers who made your faith, the authority of Peter was seen to pass on to Linus...again they accept this...
You are free to characterize my actions as you construe them from your point of view.
No, my faith was not made by any man, my faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God (i.e. the Scriptures which are given by inspiration of God).
Satan has pulled you away from God's Church.
Can I speak candidly?
I believe that everything that I have written to you is in irrefutable accord with the Scriptures.
I mean..when did Jesus say...Guys, your gonna write this Bible at some point...well you might not but your followers will...any way what ever you guys say has to be based on this scripute...get it?
Here is another side note: If Peter has so much rank as it were it sure does not show with regard to how much of God’s Word He recorded. For example, Paul wrote two-thirds of the New Testament (that is more than half of the New Testament) and yet nowhere in Scripture is he mentioned as receiving any keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Peter only wrote two general epistles (i.e. letters) and yet he is supposed to be the leader of all of Christiandome? In fact, the man that you hold in such lofty esteem was rebuked by the Apostle Paul for being a hypocrite (see Galatians 2:11-15). Paul states that he (personally) withstood Peter to his face because he (i.e. Peter) was to be blamed.
Using your logic and rationale concerning Peter I could argue that the Apostle Paul has more clout than Peter (though this is not what I intend to do because it is not true). I am just saying for discussion sake and to show you the fallacy in your reasoning, the Apostle Paul begins a tirade, but he states that he is speaking as a fool because he does not seriously feel this way. Notwithstanding, Paul enumerates his many qualifications and experiences as an Apostle of the Lord Jesus. Paul talks about his lineage as a Hebrew, his status as an Israelite, as a minister of Christ (in fact he states that he is more so), his various ordeals (Paul actually makes a case for the fact that he had been through more adversity than any of the other apostles—but…he also qualifies what he says by reminding us that he is only speaking as a fool to make a point). Paul goes on to mention the beatings, sacrifices, deeds, tribulations, and finally visions and revelations of the Lord that he went through/received. On one such occasion the Apostle Paul was taken by the Lord to third Heaven (Peter was never taken to third Heaven while he walked this earth). The Apostle Paul ends his harangue by stating:
“I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles [This must of necessity include your beloved Peter Grand_Moff_Gav _].”
(See 2 Corinthians 11:5 and chapter 11:16-33 of the same chapter)
Still speaking as a fool (in other words not seriously) Paul goes on to say,
“I have become a fool in boasting; you have compelled me. For I ought to have been commended by you; for in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing" [again, this obviously includes Peter]
[Paul states that he is nothing to remind his audience that he does not really mean what he is saying because he is speaking as a fool, even though the facts that he mentions about himself are true from a qualification standpoint].
(See 2 Corinthians 12:1-4 and chapter 12:11).
No he didn't he said YOU go out and make diciples of all nations...he sent out MEN (lead by Peter) Bishops, Priests Apostles whatever, he never printed off volumes of the Bible and said right, dish these out as you go...he sent PEOPLE...he built his Church on People NOT EVER on Scripture.
Where does it say that Peter lead masses? (You really must stop reading and inserting what is not there). Jesus spoke to the apostles as a group, not to one man.
Priests? See, that is why there is so much heresy in the body of Christ. People read into the Bible was is not there. There are no priests in the church in a functional, officiating sense. Jesus never ordained a priest to oversee His church, but He did appoint apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. The words “Pastor, bishop, and overseer” are all synonymous terms. They all denote a shepherd of a local congregation of believers. Actually, the Scriptures state that we (i.e. believers) are all kings and priests now. This is because of our standing or position in Christ (our High Priest) relative to the Father God. Each one of us has direct access to God in prayer through Christ. Moreover, each of us can come boldly to the throne of God to obtain mercy. In addition, to this, the Scriptures state that we are seated together with Christ in Heavenly places (this is how God sees us).