The Roman Church hinges on the fact that Lord Jesus gave the Apostle Peter authority over his comrades. She says that because of this authority and the fact that Bro Peter became her bishop (a statement in need of qualification), she has ascendancy over all believers around the world.

The principle of the remnant, the firstfruits or inclusivity via exclusivity holds that the Lord does not crystallize authority/power. He works on and with the few so that He can get the many. Therefore, the authority that Jesus put upon Peter was onto establishing all his disciples. It was dissipatory in nature, exemplified in nature by energy's tendency to get locked irretrievably in new states, something called entropy.

This principle is the reason that no human being is anything in themselves. Those who are more greatly blessed are so in order that those who have less will be benefited by them. The only Person Who holds complete, arbitrary sway over all things and in Whom all final authority is crystallized and reposed is God.

This is not an exposition. It is my position and I would appreciate your thoughts on it.

Ihedinobi: The Roman Church hinges on the fact that Lord Jesus gave the Apostle Peter authority over his comrades. She says that because of this authority and the fact that Bro Peter became her bishop (a statement in need of qualification), she has ascendancy over all believers around the world.

The principle of the remnant, the firstfruits or inclusivity via exclusivity holds that the Lord does not crystallize authority/power. He works on and with the few so that He can get the many. Therefore, the authority that Jesus put upon Peter was onto establishing all his disciples. It was dissipatory in nature, exemplified in nature by energy's tendency to get locked irretrievably in new states, something called entropy.

This principle is the reason that no human being is anything in themselves. Those who are more greatly blessed are so in order that those who have less will be benefited by them. The only Person Who holds complete, arbitrary sway over all things and in Whom all final authority is crystallized and reposed is God.

This is not an exposition. It is my position and I would appreciate your thoughts on it.

You are as foolish as the backyard pastor in my village. Sorry for being rude but I m sick and tired of nonsense being covered with big words. Just because you use words like "exposition", "crystallized" and "entropy", doesnt mean that you are making sense. By the way, "dissipatory" is not a word.



After grammatically debunking you, allow me to tell you what is fundamentally and logically wrong with your OP;

All human beings should be equally treated. If your god had some sense, he would have given all of us the same grace in understanding him. No, he chose to use prophets, false prophets and confusing holy books

Logicboy03:

You are as foolish as the backyard pastor in my village. Sorry for being rude but I m sick and tired of nonsense being covered with big words. Just because you use words like "exposition", "crystallized" and "entropy", doesnt mean that you are making sense. By the way, "dissipatory" is not a word.
After grammatically debunking you, allow me to tell you what is fundamentally and logically wrong with your OP;

All human beings should be equally treated. If your god had some sense, he would have given all of us the same grace in understanding him. No, he chose to use prophets, false prophets and confusing holy books

If ou have nothing meaningful o contribut, just walk pass. You mustn't talk

Joagbaje:

If ou have nothing meaningful o contribut, just walk pass. You mustn't talk

I have always known you to be intellectually dishonest with all your tithe preaching.

If you can not clearly see how I addressed the fundamental problem with the OP's statement, then you really need some super powerful being to help you.

Logicboy03:




You are as foolish as the backyard pastor in my village. Sorry for being rude but I m sick and tired of nonsense being covered with big words. Just because you use words like "exposition", "crystallized" and "entropy", doesnt mean that you are making sense. By the way, "dissipatory" is not a word.



After grammatically debunking you, allow me to tell you what is fundamentally and logically wrong with your OP;

All human beings should be equally treated. If your god had some sense, he would have given all of us the same grace in understanding him. No, he chose to use prophets, false prophets and confusing holy books

Mr Grammar Nazi. Was that really necessary?

Do you even have any idea what he is talking about? But you just had to open your fly didn't you?

If only you knew just how ignorant and bigoted you sound.

Logicboy03:

I have always known you to be intellectually dishonest with all your tithe preaching.

I'm not a tithe preacher but a gospel preacher. And you are not in anyway fit to talk about bible doctrines.

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

To know bible truths , get saved first.

Ihedinobi: The Roman Church hinges on the fact that Lord Jesus gave the Apostle Peter authority over his comrades. She says that because of this authority and the fact that Bro Peter became her bishop (a statement in need of qualification), she has ascendancy over all believers around the world.

The principle of the remnant, the firstfruits or inclusivity via exclusivity holds that the Lord does not crystallize authority/power. He works on and with the few so that He can get the many. Therefore, the authority that Jesus put upon Peter was onto establishing all his disciples. It was dissipatory in nature, exemplified in nature by energy's tendency to get locked irretrievably in new states, something called entropy.

This principle is the reason that no human being is anything in themselves. Those who are more greatly blessed are so in order that those who have less will be benefited by them. The only Person Who holds complete, arbitrary sway over all things and in Whom all final authority is crystallized and reposed is God.

This is not an exposition. It is my position and I would appreciate your thoughts on it.

I agree with you. However, I am interested in what led to the birth of this topic.

@Logicboy,
Softly softly o. I dont think the OP deserve this huge backlash. You could have easily point out the "foolishness" in his posts without hurling insults at his person. You dont want to come off a rude fellow, do you?

@Ihedinobi,
have you really sat down to understand the Catholic's stance on Bishop Peter. Its easy to condemn what we dont understand. Im sure your church has its own organisational structure that someone outside your denomination may find wrong and senseless.

Also dont forget that the Catholic church that you modern day christians are always stoning is the mother of christianity. She was responsible for your bible compilation and most of your doctrines. Its because Roman empire adopted christianity in form of Catholicism that christianity became a world dominant religion in later centuries, due to influence of Rome on England and the rest of the civilised world.
Pls do some history about Catholicism and stop throwing stones at the mother who bore you just because she has become an old woman and you think you are wiser than her.

Cheers

cyrexx: @Logicboy,
Softly softly o. I dont think the OP deserve this huge backlash. You could have easily point out the "foolishness" in his posts without hurling insults at his person. You dont want to come off a rude fellow, do you?

@Ihedinobi,
have you really sat down to understand the Catholic's stance on Bishop Peter. Its easy to condemn what we dont understand. Im sure your church has its own organisational structure that someone outside your denomination may find wrong and senseless.

Also dont forget that the Catholic church that you modern day christians are always stoning is the mother of christianity. She was responsible for your bible compilation and most of your doctrines. Its because Roman empire adopted christianity in form of Catholicism that christianity became a world dominant religion in later centuries, due to influence of Rome on England and the rest of the civilised world.
Pls do some history about Catholicism and stop throwing stones at the mother who bore you just because she has become an old woman and you think you are wiser than her.

Cheers

I am very sorry but perhaps I was misunderstood. I am not on some crusade against the Roman Church. In fact, this is a spinoff of another discussion that I was engaged in with some Catholic brothers. I had meant to address it to them but space won't allow it plus I wanted to have as open a discussion as possible.

To make my position clearer, I am a Christian. I bear no other labels. I have come to love the different hues and expressions of Christ found in Christians of many denominations and theological persuasions. So, I am not on the warpath.

What I am doing here is examining an issue that runs through every profession of Christ: the master and the disciple. Is there a hierarchy in Christianity? Of what sort is it if there is? Why one at all if there is? Why not if there is not?

Finally, yes, I do know about the Roman Church, it is part of my heritage. My mom's side of the family was Roman until my early teens. I still have a thing for Roman themes. By upbringing though, I'm a Methodist. But it's been a very long time since I was one. Also, yes, I did some research into the history of the Roman church before I spoke. This thread exists also for my education.

Mr_Anony:
I agree with you. However, I am interested in what led to the birth of this topic.

Twin bro, it's a spinoff of a conversation I once had with Enigma, Chukwudi44, Ubenedictus and Pastor AIO about the canon of the Bible. I had been meaning to start it but I was losing interest in nairaland and getting a bit busy too.

I hope for it to address to some extent the questions I pointed out to cyrexx.

Ihedinobi:

I am very sorry but perhaps I was misunderstood. I am not on some crusade against the Roman Church. In fact, this is a spinoff of another discussion that I was engaged in with some Catholic brothers. I had meant to address it to them but space won't allow it plus I wanted to have as open a discussion as possible.

To make my position clearer, I am a Christian. I bear no other labels. I have come to love the different hues and expressions of Christ found in Christians of many denominations and theological persuasions. So, I am not on the warpath.

What I am doing here is examining an issue that runs through every profession of Christ: the master and the disciple. Is there a hierarchy in Christianity? Of what sort is it if there is? Why one at all if there is? Why not if there is not?

Finally, yes, I do know about the Roman Church, it is part of my heritage. My mom's side of the family was Roman until my early teens. I still have a thing for Roman themes. By upbringing though, I'm a Methodist. But it's been a very long time since I was one. Also, yes, I did some research into the history of the Roman church before I spoke. This thread exists also for my education.

It's all good.

We are all here to learn, and we learn better when we meet people with a different view from ours.

I am not in any position to really speak for christianity, cos i cant call myself a christian anymore (though i can still share my knowledge about bible and christianity)

there are christians and catholics on nairaland that will do justice to this topic. Just humble yourself and dont come off to them as if you alone has the truth while they are in error. Im telling you, we all have a lot to learn in this journey of life.

Mr_Anony:
Mr Grammar Nazi. Was that really necessary?

Do you even have any idea what he is talking about? But you just had to open your fly didn't you?

If only you knew just how ignorant and bigoted you sound.

lol. I think he still misses the Roman church.

cyrexx: @Logicboy,
Also dont forget that the Catholic church that you modern day christians are always stoning is the mother of christianity. She was responsible for your bible compilation and most of your doctrines. Its because Roman empire adopted christianity in form of Catholicism that christianity became a world dominant religion in later centuries, due to influence of Rome on England and the rest of the civilised world.
Pls do some history about Catholicism and stop throwing stones at the mother who bore you just because she has become an old woman and you think you are wiser than her.

Cheers

I reject this form of thinking completely - that the Roman Catholic church allegedly 'compiled the bible' (a claim disputed by many) or did one/many good things in the past will never grant them immunity from criticism.

It is an appeal to emotionalism to not criticise wrong actions/doctrines (where they exist) of the RCC for the reasons you stated. If such a form of reasoning was acceptable then one would also say that Jesus shouldn't have criticised the wrong practices of the Jewish elders/Pharisees because they 'compiled' the OT and passed down the teaching before Jesus' arrival.

There is no 'mother of Christianity' - Jesus Christ is the author and finisher of our faith and we all have one Heavenly Father.

Apologies if this is a diversion from the intent of this topic, but I did feel a need to refute this emotional argument.

^^

have you heard of Nicene Council?

do you know about how some books were selected and some rejected when deciding which one to incorporate into the scriptures?

do you know about apocrypha, other gospels and pauline letters?

sir, you are the one making emotional arguments here. What i posted is an objective historical fact. I suggest you do some research too and find out some historical facts for yourself.

Mr_Anony:
Mr Grammar Nazi. Was that really necessary?

Do you even have any idea what he is talking about? But you just had to open your fly didn't you?

If only you knew just how ignorant and bigoted you sound.

Yawn



Really? like I didnt say that I was being rude in my comment?

Or like I didnt address the fundamental flaw in his OP?

Ihedinobi:

lol. I think he still misses the Roman church.

Yes because my comment could be used as a defense for the catholic church

Logicboy03:



After grammatically debunking you, allow me to tell you what is fundamentally and logically wrong with your OP;

All human beings should be equally treated. If your god had some sense, he would have given all of us the same grace in understanding him. No, he chose to use prophets, false prophets and confusing holy books

Logicboy03:




You are as foolish as the backyard pastor in my village. Sorry for being rude but I m sick and tired of nonsense being covered with big words. Just because you use words like "exposition", "crystallized" and "entropy", doesnt mean that you are making sense. By the way, "dissipatory" is not a word.



After grammatically debunking you, allow me to tell you what is fundamentally and logically wrong with your OP;

All human beings should be equally treated. If your god had some sense, he would have given all of us the same grace in understanding him. No, he chose to use prophets, false prophets and confusing holy books

The problem with your objections sometimes is that it is difficult to agree with you on what you're objecting to. For this reason, it's almost always necessary to ask what you mean.

In this case, you appear to be saying that God's use of one human being to reach another renders the two human beings unequal. While I can agree with that on one level, I reject it on another. To show you the complexity, I ask you this: describe in terms of equality the relationship between two siblings, both children, where one is older than the other and is therefore tasked with the care of that other. If the younger one is still a toddler and as such is prone to destroy things and mess things up, part of this task would be to clean up after him and teach him why things should not be destroyed.

Again, who is greater between the two and why?

Ihedinobi:

The problem with your objections sometimes is that it is difficult to agree with you on what you're objecting to. For this reason, it's almost always necessary to ask what you mean.

In this case, you appear to be saying that God's use of one human being to reach another renders the two human beings unequal. While I can agree with that on one level, I reject it on another. To show you the complexity, I ask you this: describe in terms of equality the relationship between two siblings, both children, where one is older than the other and is therefore tasked with the care of that other. If the younger one is still a toddler and as such is prone to destroy things and mess things up, part of this task would be to clean up after him and teach him why things should not be destroyed.

Again, who is greater between the two and why?

So, you indirectly admit that while I understood your OP, you didnt understand my comment?



"Equality" does not always mean "exact". There is also the principle of "fairness". A taller man will require a taller podium while a shorter man will require a shorter podium. They should have "unequal podiums" but the podiums are "equally" fitted to their heights! Same as a bigger child with bigger responisbilities

Now can you say that Jews were better than the rest of the world that they got God's world first?
Can you say that Moses was smarter or more obedient than all other men in the world?
Can you say that apostle Paul was the most righteous apostle?


Equality and fairness would dictate that all groups people should have received God's words at similar times. You can't aplly better or smarter to a group of people by race or nationality- that becomes racism

debosky:

I reject this form of thinking completely - that the Roman Catholic church allegedly 'compiled the bible' (a claim disputed by many) or did one/many good things in the past will never grant them immunity from criticism.

It is an appeal to emotionalism to not criticise wrong actions/doctrines (where they exist) of the RCC for the reasons you stated. If such a form of reasoning was acceptable then one would also say that Jesus shouldn't have criticised the wrong practices of the Jewish elders/Pharisees because they 'compiled' the OT and passed down the teaching before Jesus' arrival.

There is no 'mother of Christianity' - Jesus Christ is the author and finisher of our faith and we all have one Heavenly Father.

Apologies if this is a diversion from the intent of this topic, but I did feel a need to refute this emotional argument.

I understand, bro. But the issue was dealt with to a considerable extent on this thread from which this thread spun off.

Feel free to peruse it. You can add to it if you have a fresh perspective on it.

[size=18pt]Honest apology to Ihedinobi!


I was already angered by a christian politician who claimed that a pregnancy from rape is a thing from God. The politcian later went on to use big words to cover up his nonsense. Unfortunately, I met Ihedinobi's thread where he was blowing grammar Just to talk about a top down approach of leadership in christianity!
https://www.nairaland.com/1083251/christian-gop-candidate-conception-molestation


I am sorry and could have expressed myself better. I was also arrogant and could not accept being corrected by a tithe preacher of Jo-cashflow Joagbaje's calibre[/size]

Logicboy03:



So, you indirectly admit that while I understood your OP, you didnt understand my comment?



"Equality" does not always mean "exact". There is also the principle of "fairness". A taller man will require a taller podium while a shorter man will require a shorter podium. They should have "unequal podiums" but the podiums are "equally" fitted to their heights! Same as a bigger child with bigger responisbilities

Now can you say that Jews were better than the rest of the world that they got God's world first?
Can you say that Moses was smarter or more obedient than all other men in the world?
Can you say that apostle Paul was the most righteous apostle?


Equality and fairness would dictate that all groups people should have received God's words at similar times. You can't aplly better or smarter to a group of people by race or nationality- that becomes racism

@bolded, how so? Do we all have the exact same sensitivity to God?

Logicboy03: [size=18pt]Honest apology to Ihedinobi!


I was already angered by a christian politician who claimed that a pregnancy from rape is a thing from God. The politcian later went on to use big words to cover up his nonsense. Unfortunately, I met Ihedinobi's thread where he was blowing grammar Just to talk about a top down approach of leadership in christianity!
https://www.nairaland.com/1083251/christian-gop-candidate-conception-molestation


I am sorry and could have expressed myself better. I was also arrogant and could not accept being corrected by a tithe preacher of Jo-cashflow Joagbaje's calibre[/size]

Very gracious of you. Thank you, Logicboy.

Ihedinobi:

@bolded, how so? Do we all have the exact same sensitivity to God?

Here is the issue. Every country has its share of fanatics and intellectuals- therefore, there would be some degree of equality in sensitivity to God

Logicboy03:



Here is the issue. Every country has its share of fanatics and intellectuals- therefore, there would be some degree of equality in sensitivity to God

Again I find it difficult to associate exactness with variety in degree. Either we are all equally sensitive to God or we are not. Which do you hold it to be?

Two or three quick points

1. The question of the nature of the "authority" given to Peter has been the subject of issues of interpretation and one interpretation holds that the same "authority" was given to the rest of the apostles and to some extent to every Christian.

2. It is a misconception and a falsehood to say that the Roman Catholic Church "compiled" the Bible. That issue has already been addressed in a recent thread. https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church

3. The Nicea Council had more or less nothing to do with the compilation of the books of the Bible; it is another myth and falsehood peddled by the misinformed. The papers/proceedings of the Council are still available on the Internet and can be consulted to see the agenda that the Council dealt with.

Ihedinobi:

Again I find it difficult to associate exactness with variety in degree. Either we are all equally sensitive to God or we are not. Which do you hold it to be?

With humans, you dont have exactness! Life is measure on a continuum scale. Things are not exactly black and white.


That being said, my point remains the same; when it comes to nations, there are people of all scales of life in each nation.






On a deeper level God should have given us the exact same learning abilities but unique characters. Instead, he gave us equally-different learning ailites and unique characters.



Here is what God gave us;

-People who learn visually- will remember anything shown to them- images of the flood and they never forget Noahs story
-People who learn verbally- will remember anything told to them- tell them stories of the flood and they will never forget Noah's story
-People who learn textaully-.......................they read.....they read...........................................................

There are other types of learning but this illustrates my point.

Why cant all human beings have all three abiblities?

The fact remains that authourity was handed over to peter by Jesus before his ascension.This fact is explicitly stated in the bible(matt 16:18-19,John 21 :15-19) and is attested by several of the church fathers.Any body who wants to dispute this should adduce biblical and historical facts and not resort to mere semantics

[/quote]It is a misconception and a falsehood to say that the Roman Catholic Church "compiled" the Bible. That issue has already been addressed in a recent thread [quote]

My dear friend you woefully failed to substantiate ur miscievious fantasies.The last thing I remember on that thread is you failing to provide names of earstern church fathers who oppossed the primacy of the roman church before the east-west schism.

St Augustine presided over the church councils that decided the books of the bible.The fact still remains that he beleived in the primacy of st peter and the roman church

I'm otherwise engaged right now and can't respond to any comments. But I will later. Please, I plead with all commenters to deal with the issue on hand only. Reference another thread for any tangential discussion you may wish to pursue.

17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it...

Following the above bible reference "literally", it would be easy for anybody to conclude that authority was handed over to Simon "peter". like I said: "literally", But infact Jesus was making a perfect(spiritual) statement here, meaning: on this knowledge(rock) will I build my church... rather than the person of Simon 'peter' himself. The spirit(knowledge\Rock) is made available to anybody that believes. And if ever somebody could be given authority over the rest, judging by how much revelation\knowledge of christianity they'd delivered, then it should be Paul. According to the records we have today, it was Paul who revealed the most of christian principles that Jesus spoke of in parables, He gave the perfect interpretations Jesus's messages, which is even helped most by the fact that paul was educated and a student\teacher of the jewish law, therefore had more 'library' to interpret and reveal.

Also, in this context: "Peter" is a title for the believer, rather than the sole reference to the person of Simon.

As regards who gave us the current bible we read, I'd say it dosen't matter. Whether the Catholic church or not, they were just a custodian of the bible, it dosen't mean they can deliver the correct message or doctrine of the bible. They just hold on to it until the right person(people) for whom this message is destined comes along. It's like a postman who delivers your mails, It dosen't mean he wrote the mails or that he understands the context of the message, even if he has read or translated them for the recipient.

[/quote]As regards who gave us the current bible we read, I'd say it dosen't matter. Whether the Catholic church or not, they were just a custodian of the bible, it dosen't mean they can deliver the correct message or doctrine of the bible. They just hold on to it until the right person(people) for whom this message is destined comes along. It's like a postman who delivers your mails, It dosen't mean he wrote the mails or that he understands the context of the message, even if he has read or translated them for the recipient [quote]

This is one of the most stupid post I ve ever come across on nl.what the hell do you mean by holding it for the right people? Who are the right people? Is it kid slapping oyedepo or self servicing oyakhilome?

You must surely be kidding me.you think the source or medium through which scripyure is compiled does not matter? Why don't you go ahead and adopt the gnostic scriptures or better still adopt the heretical marcionian canon

okeyxyz: 17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it...

Following the above bible reference "literally", it would be easy for anybody to conclude that authority was handed over to Simon "peter". like I said: "literally", But infact Jesus was making a perfect(spiritual) statement here, meaning: on this knowledge(rock) will I build my church... rather than the person of Simon 'peter' himself. The spirit(knowledge\Rock) is made available to anybody that believes. And if ever somebody could be given authority over the rest, judging by how much revelation\knowledge of christianity they'd delivered, then it should be Paul. According to the records we have today, it was Paul who revealed the most of christian principles that Jesus spoke of in parables, He gave the perfect interpretations Jesus's messages, which is even helped most by the fact that paul was educated and a student\teacher of the jewish law, therefore had more 'library' to interpret and reveal.

This is ingenious. The Rock is a reference to a body of knowledge on which christianity is built. Who can argue with that? Jesus didn't say "and on this Rock, Peter, I will build my church". even if he did the mentioning of Peter could simply mean that he was talking to Peter not saying that Peter was the Rock.

What other interpretations can we conjure. We've already heard that the Rock is Christ himself. Frankly, none of these positions can be argued against as they can be legitimately read from the text.

Also, in this context: "Peter" is a title for the believer, rather than the sole reference to the person of Simon.

This one is pushing it a bit now though.

As regards who gave us the current bible we read, I'd say it dosen't matter. Whether the Catholic church or not, they were just a custodian of the bible, it dosen't mean they can deliver the correct message or doctrine of the bible. They just hold on to it until the right person(people) for whom this message is destined comes along. It's like a postman who delivers your mails, It dosen't mean he wrote the mails or that he understands the context of the message, even if he has read or translated them for the recipient.

My question would be, 'by what spirit did they compile the bible?' And is that Spirit incapable of helping them to interpret it.

I wonder who the right people the bible was made for are.