FEELS LIKE I JUST READ AN ARTICLE BY MYSELF. DE JA VOUS

obadiah777: FEELS LIKE I JUST READ AN ARTICLE BY MYSELF. DE JA VOUS

Impossible, there can only be one Obadiah777

Your biblical theories are fascinating.

As an atheist, your theories are like a car crash- ominous and macabre but you cant turn away.

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

Pastor AIO:
This one is pushing it a bit now though.

I know, common knowledge is that 'Peter' refers to the person of Simon, and this is colloquially correct since it is known that he(Simon) was the one addressed during the statement, thus: "Simon the Peter". But I speak perfectly now: Anybody who is the bearer of the gospel is the "Peter"!

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.

Well, Anyone can hold the "letters" all they want, but it takes wisdom(The spirit) to interpret it. The scripture is full of anecdotes of people having knowledge either in forms of dreams, the law, prophesy, etc, but without wisdom, they cannot understand, therefore requiring a god-inspired person to interpret & deliver the message. Most 'christians' still do not understand the gospel today since they still judge right & wrong based on human standards(The law\Flesh) and the bible is still a 'parable' to them. but that's a topic for another thread.

Logicboy03:

Impossible, there can only be one Obadiah777

Your biblical theories are fascinating.

As an atheist, your theories are like a car crash- ominous and macabre but you cant turn away.

LOL YOU DO KNOW THAT PEOPLE SAID CHRISTS INTERPRETATIONS WERE, AS YOU SO ELOQUENTLY PUT IT, OMINOUS AND MACABRE AND AS FASCINATING AS A CAR CRASH. MATTER OF FACT I BELIEVE HE WAS LYNCHED BECAUSE OF HIS OMINOUS AND MACABRE AND FASCINATING BIBLICAL THEORIES

NARROW IS THE WAY. IF YOUR DOCTRINE IS NOT TOO POPULAR AND YET YOU CAN PROVE IT IN THE BIBLE ? THEN ITS THE TRUTH RUTH. SCRIPTURE SAYS MY PEOPLE LIKE TO HEAR SWEET THINGS. THEY LIKE TO HAVE IT SO. ME MYSELF ? MY DOCTRINE IS LIKE 'GUM INJECTIONS'. VERY PAINFUL AND HATED BUT ITS WHAT YOU NEED TO EXTRACT THAT STONY HEART

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



I know, common knowledge is that 'Peter' refers to the person of Simon, and this is colloquially correct since it is known that he(Simon) was the one addressed during the statement, thus: "Simon the Peter". But I speak perfectly now: Anybody who is the bearer of the gospel is the "Peter"!




Well, Anyone can hold the "letters" all they want, but it takes wisdom(The spirit) to interpret it. The scripture is full of anecdotes of people having knowledge either in forms of dreams, the law, prophesy, etc, but without wisdom, they cannot understand, therefore requiring a god-inspired person to interpret & deliver the message. Most 'christians' still do not understand the gospel today since they still judge right & wrong based on human standards(The law\Flesh) and the bible is still a 'parable' to them. but that's a topic for another thread.

How would you explain John 21:15-19

There were other apostles sitted there so why should Jesus direct this questions and commands to Peter alone

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.

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

^^^ This is a line of interpretation favoured by many of the "church fathers". In fact it was also expounded by Augustine of Hippo and you can easily find his statement that I quote below readily on the Internet.

So let us love him, let there be nothing dearer to us than he. So do you imagine that the Lord is not questioning us? Was Peter the only one who qualified to be questioned, and didn’t we? When that reading is read, every single Christian is being questioned in his heart. So when you hear the Lord saying ‘Peter, do you love me?’ think of it as a mirror, and observe yourself there. I mean, what else was Peter doing but standing for the Church? So when the Lord was questioning Peter, he was questioning us, he was questioning the Church. I mean, to show you that Peter stood for the Church, call to mind that place in the gospel, ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her; to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt 16:18-19). One man receives them; you see, he explained himself what the keys of the kingdom mean: ‘What you all bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what you all loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 18:18). If it was said to Peter alone, Peter alone did this; he passed away, and went away; so who binds, who looses? I make bold to say, we too have these keys. And what am I to say? That it is only we who bind, only we who loose? No, you also bind, you also loose. Anybody who’s bound, you see, is barred from your society; and when he’s barred from your society, he’s bound by you; and when he’s reconciled he’s loosed by you, because you too plead with God for him.

We all love Christ, you see, we are his members; and when he entrusts the sheep to the shepherds, the whole number of shepherds is reduced to the body of one shepherd. Just to show you that the whole number of shepherds is reduced to the one body of the one shepherd, certainly Peter’s a shepherd, undoubtedly a pastor; Paul’s a shepherd, yes, clearly a pastor; John’s a shepherd, James a shepherd, Andrew a shepherd, and the other apostles are shepherds. All holy bishops are shepherds, pastors, yes, clearly so. And how can this be true: And there will be one flock and one shepherd (Jn 10:16)? Then if there will be one flock and one shepherd is true, the innumerable number of shepherds or pastors must be reduced to the body of the one shepherd or pastor

With regard to the second part of the post (quoted below), though I appreciate the point being made the fact of history remains that it was adamantly NOT the Roman Catholic Church that compiled or even preserved the Bible.

okeyxyz: [color=#990000]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.

obadiah777: LOL YOU DO KNOW THAT PEOPLE SAID CHRISTS INTERPRETATIONS WERE, AS YOU SO ELOQUENTLY PUT IT, OMINOUS AND MACABRE AND AS FASCINATING AS A CAR CRASH. MATTER OF FACT I BELIEVE HE WAS LYNCHED BECAUSE OF HIS OMINOUS AND MACABRE AND FASCINATING BIBLICAL THEORIES

NARROW IS THE WAY. IF YOUR DOCTRINE IS NOT TOO POPULAR AND YET YOU CAN PROVE IT IN THE BIBLE ? THEN ITS THE TRUTH RUTH. SCRIPTURE SAYS MY PEOPLE LIKE TO HEAR SWEET THINGS. THEY LIKE TO HAVE IT SO. ME MYSELF ? MY DOCTRINE IS LIKE 'GUM INJECTIONS'. VERY PAINFUL AND HATED BUT ITS WHAT YOU NEED TO EXTRACT THAT STONY HEART

lol.

Enigma:


^^^ This is a line of interpretation favoured by many of the "church fathers". In fact it was also expounded by Augustine of Hippo and you can easily find his statement that I quote below readily on the Internet.




With regard to the second part of the post (quoted below), though I appreciate the point being made the fact of history remains that it was adamantly NOT the Roman Catholic Church that compiled or even preserved the Bible.

I completely agree. The principle of the remnant.

chukwudi44:

How would you explain John 21:15-19

There were other apostles sitted there so why should Jesus direct this questions and commands to Peter alone

This is a classic error on the part of those who are supposed to know the gospel. Peter had the position of leader of the disciples, but then this was in the era of The Law rather than the era of gospel. The gospel was not revealed during the life of Jesus and his organization(followers). This was why Jesus spoke in parables, His messages were deliberately coded to hide the true meanings because the time was not yet right for it's revelation, otherwise the devil would not have been defeated through his death & resurrection. Now that we are in the era of grace(gospel) it would be erroneous to continue to hold on to the same structures and values as we did when we were under the law and when Jesus taught the law. So if catholics choose Peter as their head, then it's up to them but they should be aware that such structure is according to the Law, the same law that christ was supposed to have liberated us from.

16“No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. 17Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”(Matthew 9:16-17)

Virtually all christians continue in this error, Still defining gospel by the image and standards of that Jesus who walked with his disciples, the jesus who preached and upheld the law, the one who made peter his chief disciple. But if you are born again, aold things are passed away, your values should change, your definition of sin should also change and should not be according to the law...but I'm digressing.

Bottom line is: Peter was not chief apostle(if ever there was one), though he was chief disciple but that was a past era. An old structure cannot be in force while the message and doctrines have changed.

@enigma

You must be seriously sick to misintepreting the writings of st Augustine in such a brazen manner.The great saint explicitly stated the primacy of st peter and the roman church in several of is writing.St Augustine and st Thomas aquinas remains among the most influential figures in catholic teachings as their writings greatly influenced key catholic doctrines inluding child baptism,purgatory,veneration of saints ,use of images e.t.c

Saint Augustine below speaks on the primacy of peter as captured oin wikipedia

Saint Augustine was born in Numidia in 354 and was baptized in Milan in 387. He was also bishop of Hippo from 397 til his death in 430. Augustine taught that Peter was first amongst the apostles, and thus represents the church.[22] His Sermo states, "For Peter in many places in the Scriptures appears to represent the Church, especially in that place where it was said "I give to thee the keys… shall be loosed in heaven". What! did Peter receive these keys, and Paul not receive? Did Peter receive and John and James not receive, and the rest of the apostles? But since in a figure Peter represented the Church, what was given to him singly was given to the Church." [23] His 395 C.E. Contra Epistolam Manichaei states, "There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church… The succession of the priests keeps me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate." [2

okeyxyz:

This is a classic error on the part of those who are supposed to know the gospel. Peter had the position of leader of the disciples, but then this was in the era of The Law rather than the era of gospel. The gospel was not revealed during the life of Jesus and his organization(followers). This was why Jesus spoke in parables, His messages were deliberately coded to hide the true meanings because the time was not yet right for it's revelation, otherwise the devil would not have been defeated through his death & resurrection. Now that we are in the era of grace(gospel) it would be erroneous to continue to hold on to the same structures and values as we did when we were under the law and when Jesus taught the law. So if catholics choose Peter as their head, then it's up to them but they should be aware that such structure is according to the Law, the same law that christ was supposed to have liberated us from.

16“No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. 17Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”(Matthew 9:16-17)

Virtually all christians continue in this error, Still defining gospel by the image and standards of that Jesus who walked with his disciples, the jesus who preached and upheld the law, the one who made peter his chief disciple. But if you are born again, aold things are passed away, your values should change, your definition of sin should also change and should not be according to the law...but I'm digressing.

Bottom line is: Peter was not chief apostle(if ever there was one), though he was chief disciple but that was a past era. An old structure cannot be in force while the message and doctrines have changed.

Jesus christ handed over the curch to peter in John 21:15-19 after his resurrection.This happened after the era of the law ended on good friday.The era of grace started on easter sunday after which the church was handed over to peter

Encore per Augustine of Hippo (who was NOT a Roman Catholic Bishop)

Its clear, you see, from many places in scripture that Peter can stand for, or represent, the Church; above all from that place where it says, To you will I hand over the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Mt. 16:19). Did Peter receive these keys, and Paul not receive them? Did Peter receive them, and John and James and the other apostles not receive them? Or are the keys not to be found in the Church, where sins are being forgiven every day? But because Peter symbolically stood for the Church, what was given to him alone was given to the whole Church. So Peter represented the Church; the Church is the body of Christ.

@ Ihedinobi

Further in relation to the key points of the opening post, it is worth bearing in mind:

(a) that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself was a servant King and taught Peter and the other apostles to be servants too, to be like children, to not seek "primacy"!

Matthew 20

25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

and (b) that what appeared to be said to Peter alone in Matthew 16:18-19 is indeed dissipatory is demonstrated by the clearly collectiveness of the same delegation in other parts of the Bible e.g. John 20:21-23 and especially as below -

Matthew 18

18 “I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

19 “Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”

So Augustine and the other "church fathers" had a point when they saw the "authority" given to Peter as "authority" given to the Church i.e. to the body of Christ.

Enigma please stop telling lies and tell us where st Augustine or any other church father opposed the petrine or roman supremacy.I can still go on and give you more quotations.of course peter can represent the church because the churches authouruty was vested on him.This is what the catholic church preaches.Authourity was vested on the church in the person of peter.it is now left for you to show where any church father oppossed the exercise of such powers by the bishop of rome.

More quotations from st Augustine below

“Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.”
Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18 (A.D. 393),GCC 51 

“Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God is able to forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church.”
Christian Combat, 31:33(A.D. 397), in JUR,3:51 

“For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of ‘mountain men,’ or Cutzupits, by which they were known.”
To Generosus, Epistle 53:2(A.D. 400), in NPNF1,I:298 

“When, therefore, He had said to His disciples, ‘Will ye also go away?” Peter, that Rock, answered with the voice of all, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.’ “
Homilies on John, Tract 11:5(A.D. 417), in NPNF1,VII:76 

“And the Lord, to him to whom a little before He had said, ‘Blessed thou art, and upon this Rock I will build my Church,’ saith, ‘Go back behind, Satan, an offence thou art to Me.’ Why therefore ‘Satan’ is he, that a little before was ‘blessed,’ and a ‘Rock’ ?”
In Psalms, 56[55]:14[PL 36, 656] (A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:223 

“Peter, who had confessed Him as the Son of God, and in that confession had been called the rock upon which the Church should be built.”
In Psalms, 69:4[PL 36, 869] (A.D. 418), in Butler, 251 

“And if a Jew asks us why we do that, we sound from the rock, we say, This Peter did, this Paul did: from the midst of the rocks we give our voice. But that rock, Peter himself, that great mountain, when he prayed and saw that vision, was watered from above.”
In Psalms, 104[103]:16(A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:513

Give me direct quotations from any church father before the schism oppossing the primacy of peter or the roman see.This is what I have been demanding since the last thread and which you have woefully failed to do.stop beating around the bush and provide me answers.

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.

pls let me sleep, i wil check this up wen im awake

Enigma: 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.

chukwudi and co have already refuted dis but u are very dishonest and has decided to waste our strenght by telling us to beat a dead goat

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

i believe u were also refuted in that thread.

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.

nicea wasnt involved with the bible, d bible was compiled by the council of hippo, d synod of rome and the council of cathage.

Pastor AIO:

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.

This one is pushing it a bit now though.

on the above both of you are ingenious engaging in mental gymnastics. U are d guy wu usually shout "if d literal sense makes sense seek no other sense" but today u guys are jumping

i just have one question for u, christ said "i will give u the keys of the kingdom" was he talking to "the body of knowledge on which christianity is built"? Or was he talking to himself? Or to simon peter?

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.

good question

chukwudi44: Give me direct quotations from any church father before the schism oppossing the primacy of peter or the roman see.This is what I have been demanding since the last thread and which you have woefully failed to do.stop beating around the bush and provide me answers.

pls chukwudi dont take d discussion to that edge the protestant wont be able to keep up, just give a simple answer to ihen

okeyxyz:

This is a classic error on the part of those who are supposed to know the gospel. Peter had the position of leader of the disciples, but then this was in the era of The Law rather than the era of gospel. The gospel was not revealed during the life of Jesus and his organization(followers). This was why Jesus spoke in parables, His messages were deliberately coded to hide the true meanings because the time was not yet right for it's revelation, otherwise the devil would not have been defeated through his death & resurrection. Now that we are in the era of grace(gospel) it would be erroneous to continue to hold on to the same structures and values as we did when we were under the law and when Jesus taught the law. So if catholics choose Peter as their head, then it's up to them but they should be aware that such structure is according to the Law, the same law that christ was supposed to have liberated us from.

16“No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. 17Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”(Matthew 9:16-17)

Virtually all christians continue in this error, Still defining gospel by the image and standards of that Jesus who walked with his disciples, the jesus who preached and upheld the law, the one who made peter his chief disciple. But if you are born again, aold things are passed away, your values should change, your definition of sin should also change and should not be according to the law...but I'm digressing.

Bottom line is: Peter was not chief apostle(if ever there was one), though he was chief disciple but that was a past era. An old structure cannot be in force while the message and doctrines have changed.

actually this is as close to heresy as one can get.
Are u blind, deaf, dumb or mentally retarded that u do not understand d ful import of the above? So all christ preached in the gospel was "the law" and a "born again" christian should accept it.
Ha! My God have mercy!

I wanted to wait till i have slept but the thread is degenerating so pls forgive me if i dont make much sense i havent slept thru d nite.
I am a catholic and will try to explain this points as quickly and clearly as i can

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.

pls take it easy here. Yes the church say peter was given the "keys of the kingdom" and yes he was, the keys of the kingdom accding to isa 22:22 is the property and insignia of the prime minister of d davidic kingdom. Christ is the new king of the kingdom it is all over scriptures and he gave the keys of his kingdom to one of his servant by that very fact he wu bears the keys is the prime minister (d foremost servant). That is how peter is d chief of d apostles and all early xtians agree and to the see he formed and died is considered his see all wu sit open that chair excercise d petrine authority (just as d pharisees were d occupiers of d chair of moses). I dont understand what you mean by "ascendency ova all believer"

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.

i thought u hinge on d bible is dis "pinciple blah blah blah" there?

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.

i cant disagree

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

thanks

After my failed attempt to understand the chemistry u adopted to theology i decided to present in the clearest term, my understanding of a christian.
§871 "christian faithful are those who, inasmuch as have bee incorporated in christ thru baptism have been constituted as the people of God; for this reason since they are sharers in christ's priestly, prophetic and royal office in their own manner, they are called to excercise d mission which God has entrusted the church fulfill in d world in accord with the codition proper to each one"
this is d catholic and my understanding of a christian, one wu is in christ thru baptism and thus among God people and thus shares the ministry of christ, so each christian is a priest wu can offer supplications to God for himself and odas, is a prophet wu is to speak forth and proclaim that which pertains to God and a member of d royal family cos my elder broda is a king. Thus empowered he is to exercise d mission God gave his church wen he said "go make disciple of all nation..." in accord with d condition proper to him.

§872 "in virtue of their rebirth in christ there exists among all d christian faithful a true equality with regards to dignity and the activity where by they cooperate in the building up of d body of christ in accord with each ones position"


it is in this sense that catholic understand the equality of believers.

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.

for those wu may understand this statement to mean that the pope claims to be greater and other christians.
§873 "....for 'in the church there is diversity of ministry but unity of mission. To the apostles and their successors christ has entrusted THE OFFICE of teaching, santifying and governing in his name and by his power...."

so to all the catholic church doesnt claim d pope is greater than any believer instead she states as a matter of fact that in the church is the organ that teaches and govern all christian in matters of faith and morals.

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.

so entropy is part of your theology, this is d first time i'm hearing d word in theology. Entropy in chemistry denotes randomness, my God isnt random, he has a purpose. I will write clearly on what i believe. I hold that God in christ Jesus wish that in his church be found a permanent repository of truth "the church in d bullwark and foundation of truth". I firmly hold that he wished that this truth be transmitted 2 tim 2:2 and that in the apostles he established a teaching authority that is suppose to hold true even as christ words hold true wen he said "he wu hears you hears me". I also go futher to assert that power and authority has alway been transmitted in the church thru the laying of hands. I lay this as a foundation because i wish to explain sumtin deeper. When Jesus spoke against the pharisees in matt23 he made a point many pipo skip wen reading because of d criticism dat follows vs2 says "the scribe nd pharisees sit on moses seat so practice nd observe whatever they tell you.." the word seat is "cathedra" in greek so d pharisees sit of moses cathedra, this isnt sum physical stool, it is d symbol of a teaching authority that is passed down since moses, in essence Jesus gave d pharisees a certificate to teach d law simply because they were on "moses sit". Many will find this suprising but yet the pharisee had a right to teach d law even though they couldnt practice it because they are successors of moses teaching authority. To peter christ gave an whole new authority wen he said "i give u d keys" he brings to mind 1s 22:15-25 esp vs 22 it say "i will place on his shoulder d key of d h of david, he shall shut no one shall open..." these are all telling us what d keys signify. It signify d office of prime minister, a office with power and authority. The other apostles are given similar authority in matt18 but none is given the keys and dis correspond to a kingdom with one king one prime minister and many other ministers. Please note the office isnt vacant.
I wish to go futher, act 2:20 show d exact picture of what happens to an office wen d holder dies it says "his office let another take" the word translated as office is "episcopae" where we got d word episcopal translated as "oversee" that is why kjv translate it as "his bishopric let another take" it says his episcopal office let another take or again his office as an overseer let another take."
it is in this sense that d early church fathers say that peter lives and judges in his successor d bishops of rome. Because d authority/office given to peter isnt meant to die with him but to remain with the church forever...
So i dont believe that peters office disintegrated and disipated. No! I believe that it is an office as that of an overseer (bishop) it doesnt disintegrate and disipate instead it is replicated and transfered rather bestowed, just as d apostles bestow d power to oversee to their successor so did peter bestow his office to d see of rome and the early christians bear witness.

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.

amen and all i have said since marwin is that d office is for d edification of d church.

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

the above are my thoughts i hope u consider them with an open mind.

Again, going back to the opening post: further scriptural basis for the approach taken by Augustine and other "church fathers" about the 'dissipatory' nature of the "authority" of Peter can be found in Ephesians 2

19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

In relation to Augustine and others, I'd like to c&p here something I first posted on another thread* together with a relevant link ---- attesting to their interpretation of the 'Primacy of Peter' in which they see the "authority" of Peter being vested in all the apostles, in all bishops everywhere, and for some of them even in all Christians.

From http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/mt16.html

Many of the Eastern Fathers who are rightly acknowledged to be the greatest and most representative and are, moreover, so considered by the universal Church, do not offer us any more evidence of the primacy. Their writings show that they recognized the primacy of the Apostle Peter, that they regarded the See of Rome as the prima sedes playing a major part in the Catholic communion—we are recalling, for example, the writings of St. John Chrysostom and of St. Basil who addressed himself to Rome in the midst of the difficulties of the schism of Antioch—but they provide us with no theological statement on the universal primacy of Rome by divine right. The same can be said of St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. John Damascene . . . .

It does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later {addendum: Roman Catholic} Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16–19. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical.

I believe that the East had a very poor conception of the Roman primacy. The East did not see in it what Rome herself saw and what the West saw in Rome, that is to say, a continuation of the primacy of St. Peter. The bishop of Rome was more than the successor of Peter on his cathedra, he was Peter perpetuated, invested with Peter’s responsibility and power. The East has never understood this perpetuity. St. Basil ignored it, as did St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. John Chrysostom. In the writings of the great Eastern Fathers, the authority of the Bishop of Rome is an authority of singular grandeur, but in these writings it is not considered so by divine right

.

* Previously posted here https://www.nairaland.com/1057120/german-catholics-face-excommunication-over/2#12318807

Ubenedictus: on the above both of you are ingenious engaging in mental gymnastics. U are d guy wu usually shout "if d literal sense makes sense seek no other sense" but today u guys are jumping

i just have one question for u, christ said "i will give u the keys of the kingdom" was he talking to "the body of knowledge on which christianity is built"? Or was he talking to himself? Or to simon peter?

I no get answer for ya kweshun o!

Enigma please stop making a fool of yourself.I want to hear Basil,Gregory,John chrysostom and others directly to me.Give me direct quotations from any of their numerous writing refuting the notion of petrine or roman supremacy and not the nonsense you spewed above.is that too much to ask ?

chukwudi44: Enigma please stop making a fool of yourself.I want to hear Basil,Gregory,John chrysostom and others directly to me.Give me direct quotations from any of their numerous writing refuting the notion of petrine or roman supremacy and not the nonsense you spewed above.is that too much to ask ?

Which one is more important to you , petrine or roman supremacy or the supremacy of Christ.

Now I know that you have given yourself over to believe in this nonsense propagated by the heathen RCC.

Mate come to Jesus and receive life.

Listen to the words of st john chrysostom bishop of the eastern churches most influential church of constantinopole.

...If the primacy of St. Peter is so unimportant a fact -- if it gave him no prerogatives, no duties, no successors -- why on earth is it so extraordinarily prominent in Holy Writ?"

More from st John chrysostom

He saith to him, 'Feed My sheep.' Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, and the head of the choir; for this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now, since his denial had been purged away, He entrusts him with the rule over the brethren; and the fervent love which thou hast shown throughout, and in which thou didst boast, show now; and the life which thou saidst thou wouldst lay down for Me, give for My sheep." (Hom 88[87] in Joann 1, vol VIII, 477-9[525-6])

As if St. Chrysostom was prescient of some future critic who would wish to explain that any of the apostles might be said to preside over the brethren, and that what is said to Peter as head of the choir is meant for all, he adds further on:

"If anyone should say 'Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?' I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that See but of the world."

[ Giles has: "And if anyone would say 'How did James receive the chair of Jerusalem?", I would reply that he appointed Peter a teacher not of the chair, but of the world..." (Chrysostom, on John, Homily 88, Migne PG 59:478, Giles page 164)

Pastor AIO:

I no get answer for ya kweshun o!

i thought this was a discussion, was i wrong? U said "iwill build my church" is refering to d "body of...". I have to ask again, does d key also belong to d "body of...", or did Jesus give himself d keys or did he give it to peter? Many pipo skip dis part and i see them as dishonest. If d "rock" is a body of... I wonder wu was given d keys.

frosbel:

Which one is more important to you , petrine or roman supremacy or the supremacy of Christ.

Now I know that you have given yourself over to believe in this nonsense propagated by the heathen RCC.

Mate come to Jesus and receive life.

they are all part of d gospel, above i gave a scriptural thought on d petrine primacy, if u want me to present my thoughts of d supremacy of christ i have no body.
I will go back to d analogy i made above, d kingdon has the king, christ Jesus wu is "all in all" and preeminent over all, "d master of the key" wu has jurisdiction power and authority as given by d king and many ministers.
Feel free to write abt my reply to ihen.
No part of d gospel is suppose to be thrown away, both d supremacy of christ and d primacy of peter are there. U arent suppose to pick and chose.