Jolliano:


Who did he tell "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven"?
Who did he tell "Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven"?

Pls read the previous verse slowly and properly. The keys given are to the church, not Peter as a person.
Comprehension is proper, it wont hurt u

Jolliano:
And Peter ended the debate by defining what we call a DOGMA.

James made a suggestion as to what message should be passed across. Peter ended the debate.

Be fair with scriptures. Don't read your tradition into it. It is sin.Have some regard for God's holy word. It is not just a compilation of books. But God-breathed.

"I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible."[pope John XXIII)
The bible never spoke in regard of any man as infallible. God alone is infallible and His word alone is exclusively inerrant.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.*
Pro 30:5-6 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Only the self conceited would consider himself infallible. Even the apostles didn't think they were infallible:
Gal 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Bobbysworld28:

So it is wrong for anyone to assert that she was dead or that Peter seperated from her once he came to Jesus.
I dont think Jesus would have condoned such irresponsibility, do you?

my dear, the bible doesn't hint anywhere that she was alive at the time. Dont u find it interesting dat peter mother-in-law was identified but his wife was nowhere to b found?

Scholar8200:
Going further to 1 Corinth 9:5, Paul hinted that Cephas/Peter still led about a wife.

that is actually rightly translated as a female christian by all early christains, d greek word there is a sister who is a woman.

It seems ur translators are playing wit u.

Christ couldn't have by any means made Peter pope. The titles themselves are Antichrist

"holy father"
only used once in scripture ( by Jesus himself) referring to God. Joh 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
"Sovereign pontiff, vicar of Christ"
[Mat 23:8-11/KJV]] But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

Ubenedictus:
my dear, the bible doesn't hint anywhere that she was alive at the time. Dont u find it interesting dat peter mother-in-law was identified but his wife was nowhere to b found?

Neither was it hinted dt she was dead, innit?

@ joliano
Read
Luk 22:24] And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.
On the night Jesus was arrested there was strife among the apostles who the greatest should be. The apostles obviously did not understand that their was any 'pope'

accountable:
The bible never spoke in regard of any man as infallible. God alone is infallible and His word alone is exclusively inerrant.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.*
Pro 30:5-6 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Only the self conceited would consider himself infallible. Even the apostles didn't think they were infallible:
Gal 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

lol, please read d passage above again. Men can be infallible when under d influence of d inerrant holy spirit. Paul was infallible when he wrote romans, corithian, eph...etc, peter was infallible when he wrote d epistles of peter.
If u dont agree wit d above dat mean ur bible is fallible.

The apostles were so sure they possesed infallibility that they commanded the early christians not to accept any tin different frm what they were taught even if an angel came down to teach it. Dat means d apostles certianly believe that theis teaching were without error.

Or do u think they taught errors and still admonished d earlx xtians not to accept anything different?

Bobbysworld28:

Pls read the previous verse slowly and properly. The keys given are to the church, not Peter as a person.
Comprehension is proper, it wont hurt u

what i read is, you are cephas and upon this cephas i will build my church..., i will give YOU the keys of the kingdom...

That is pretty clear my dear, peter was given d keys, he also had his name changed from simon to cephas. Unles u are trying to misinterprete d word of God.

Ubenedictus:

lol, please read d passage above again. Men can be infallible when under d influence of d inerrant holy spirit. Paul was infallible when he wrote romans, corithian, eph...etc, peter was infallible when he wrote d epistles of peter.
If u dont agree wit d above dat mean ur bible is fallible.

The apostles were so sure they possesed infallibility that they commanded the early christians not to accept any tin different frm what they were taught even if an angel came down to teach it. Dat means d apostles certianly believe that theis teaching were without error.

Or do u think they taught errors and still admonished d earlx xtians not to accept anything different?

I can see that u cleverly deleted the part were the pope said that he is not infallible. I agree that the holy spirit that inspired the scripture is infallible.but the man is not infallible. Paul said that he is not infallible, do u want to contradict him?
He said 'even we'. They didn't claim to be infallible. But the inspired word they had preached was infallible. The man is not infallible but the THE WORD is infallible

Bobbysworld28:
Ur claim is totally unfounded. James was talking abt a support system of believes here not classes of priesthood. Choi, u r still going round in circles

sorry dear bt she does have a fine point. The apostle james clearly says call a presbyter, dat is actually d minister of d church, the guy incharge of preaching, breaking of bread and laying of hands for a new presbyter.

Whether u chose to ignore it or not but scripture show dat out of d 'kingdom of priest' some where called out to minister to d people. There was a ministerial priesthood.

Bobbysworld28:
There is an additional layer of authority btwn men and Christ (herein lies the follow of the Roman Catholic Church). If Christ lives in me, how can these things u say hold water? Let d teachings of Christ guide u and u wont err

thank God u agree that the presbyter and d bishop are men in d church who do posses some authority.

Ubenedictus:

lol, please read d passage above again. Men can be infallible when under d influence of d inerrant holy spirit. Paul was infallible when he wrote romans, corithian, eph...etc, peter was infallible when he wrote d epistles of peter.
If u dont agree wit d above dat mean ur bible is fallible.

The apostles were so sure they possesed infallibility that they commanded the early christians not to accept any tin different frm what they were taught even if an angel came down to teach it. Dat means d apostles certianly believe that theis teaching were without error.

Or do u think they taught errors and still admonished d earlx xtians not to accept anything different?

Simply put.... even if we come back to preach any thing to u contrary to 'this truth' don't believe us but rather hold on to 'the truth'

If I say anything to u that is contrary to the gospel don't believe........ PAUL
Always believe whatever I tell you concerning faith because I am infallible......Pope.
This two statements are different and opposiet. Can't u see?

Bobbysworld28:
Ur claim is totally unfounded. James was talking abt a support system of believes here not classes of priesthood. Choi, u r still going round in circles

sorry dear bt she does have a fine point. The apostle james clearly says call a presbyter, dat is actually d minister of d church, the guy incharge of preaching, breaking of bread and laying of hands for a new presbyter.

Whether u chose to ignore it or not but scripture show dat out of d 'kingdom of priest' some where called out to minister to d people. There was a ministerial priesthood.

accountable:

I can see that u cleverly deleted the part were the pope said that he is not infallible. I agree that the holy spirit that inspired the scripture is infallible.but the man is not infallible. Paul said that he is not infallible, do u want to contradict him?
He said 'even we'. They didn't claim to be infallible. But the inspired word they had preached was infallible. The man is not infallible but the THE WORD is infallible

the pope say he has to speak infalliably to b infalliable. Popes do no speak infallably every time they speak, they have to speak infalliably to be infalible, pope John decided from d begining never to speak infallibly, so throughout his time he decided not to use infallibility. He was not infalible. D presemt pope too (pope francis) has never used infalibility too. There is nothing interesting there.

2. So has d holyspirit stop making men teach infallible truth?

The bible says says concerning the bereans
[Act 17:11-12/KJV] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

They searched the scriptures daily whether those things spoken by Paul were true. I doing see any infallibility there. Do u? They bereans are a worthy example of true followers and Paul is a good example of a true leader. No infallibility. Only the word is infallible

accountable:

Simply put.... even if we come back to preach any thing to u contrary to 'this truth' don't believe us but rather hold on to 'the truth'

If I say anything to u that is contrary to the gospel don't believe........ PAUL
Always believe whatever I tell you concerning faith because I am infallible......Pope.
This two statements are different and opposiet. Can't u see?

so paul had proclaim a truth which he blived was without error (infallible), and he told them that if even (hypothetical) anyone including themself teach sumtin different it should not be accepted. He simply made an hypothetical case, he in no way infer dat he would lata teach error.

In any case u'll still agree that d truth he first taught were without error and thus infallible.

2. The two statements arent necesary opposites, if d pope alway proclaims d infallible teaching of d apostle then he taught without error.

Ubenedictus:
the pope say he has to speak infalliably to b infalliable. Popes do no speak infallably every time they speak, they have to speak infalliably to be infalible, pope John decided from d begining never to speak infallibly, so throughout his time he decided not to use infallibility. He was not infalible. D presemt pope too (pope francis) has never used infalibility too. There is nothing interesting there.

2. So has d holyspirit stop making men teach infallible truth?

No he hasn't. The test of infallible truth is the word.( PS 12:6, prov 30: 5-6)
*[[Isa 8:20]]To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Giving the appellation infallible to a man is opening the door for heresy. For no man can be infallible.

accountable:
The bible says says concerning the bereans
[Act 17:11-12/KJV] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

They searched the scriptures daily whether those things spoken by Paul were true. I doing see any infallibility there. Do u? They bereans are a worthy example of true followers and Paul is a good example of a true leader. No infallibility. Only the word is infallible

my dear, d teach paul gave them was without error, they search d old testament so they might b convince as conviction is a personal matter. Even as d church continues teaching the apostolic teaching she is convinced that those teaching are without error while at the same time allowing many to search d scriptures to b personal convinced.

D fact that d bareans search scripture doesnt mean d teaching of paul had error (fallible).

Ubenedictus:


so paul had proclaim a truth which he blived was without error (infallible), and he told them that if even (hypothetical) anyone including themself teach sumtin different it should not be accepted. He simply made an hypothetical case, he in no way infer dat he would lata teach error.

In any case u'll still agree that d truth he first taught were without error and thus infallible.

2. The two statements arent necesary opposites, if d pope alway proclaims d infallible teaching of d apostle then he taught without error.

We are gradually reaching a consensus, I see. I can see that ur statement now have 'ifs'. That is it. If it is in line with truth..... But what if it is not?

Ubenedictus:
that is actually rightly translated as a female christian by all early christains, d greek word there is a sister who is a woman.

It seems ur translators are playing wit u.

So Paul had to qualify the type of sister, that it should be a sister that is a woman and not the sister that is a man!!! I think you should be objective here. In that chapter 9, Paul itemised some legitimate things he denied himself of in order to preach the Gospel, one of them was marriage and that is why he could say:

8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I
32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.
1 Corinth 7:8,32,35

Ubenedictus:
my dear, d teach paul gave them was without error, they search d old testament so they might b convince as conviction is a personal matter. Even as d church continues teaching the apostolic teaching she is convinced that those teaching are without error while at the same time allowing many to search d scriptures to b personal convinced.

D fact that d bareans search scripture doesnt mean d teaching of paul had error (fallible).

But herein we differ. That I will stay with the word and will not believe my pastor if he teaches contrary to the truth. But u will believe whatever ur pope says ex cathedra

Ubenedictus:
what i read is, you are cephas and upon this cephas i will build my church..., i will give YOU the keys of the kingdom...

That is pretty clear my dear, peter was given d keys, he also had his name changed from simon to cephas. Unles u are trying to misinterprete d word of God.

Do reconcile your interpretation with:

Ephesians 2:20
20 and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Ubenedictus:
my dear, d teach paul gave them was without error, they search d old testament so they might b convince as conviction is a personal matter. Even as d church continues teaching the apostolic teaching she is convinced that those teaching are without error while at the same time allowing many to search d scriptures to b personal convinced.

D fact that d bareans search scripture doesnt mean d teaching of paul had error (fallible).

Yes those teachings of Paul didn't have error.
But the point is that the bereans did not consider him infallible. Hmm?

Scholar8200:
That is your interpretation which was neither stated nor hinted at by ANY of the Apostles in their Epistles!

so u do nt blive dat Jesus gave his authority to d apostles? Wat does matt 18:18 say? Is dat not authority been given?

Galatians 2:2
And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

Peter was one of the Apostles of repute ( and perhaps notable because of his being an extrovert) but there were others eg James, John etc

did u read what u quoted? Read d bold, paul wasn't taught by anyone but even him had to meet d apostles to confirm his teaching he said 'so dat he doesn't run in vain'.

Jolliano:


1. Still any number of Christians would not gather and make a decision which would be binding on all Christians. For their decision to be obeyed and followed by all, they must have had a certain RECOGNISABLE and ACCEPTABLE AUTHORITY.

Of course, I'm not saying the Holy Spirit was not more important. The Holy Spirit guided them but if the Council had no authority, then the others wouldn't have adhered to it.

You say the Apostles didn't have special authority. Was the "Whatever you bind on Earth is bound in Heaven..." given to everyone or to Peter and then to the Apostles?

fine point.

Jolliano:
And Peter ended the debate by defining what we call a DOGMA.

James made a suggestion as to what message should be passed across. Peter ended the debate.

Pls show chapter and verse in book of Acts where your claim happened!



James made the Spirit inspired declaration and all the apostles and elders, one of which was Peter, agreed to it.

Acts 15:13,22,23
13And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: 23 and they wrote letters by them after this manner;

The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:

Pls study carefully before making assertions, we are on air!

Ubenedictus:
what i read is, you are cephas and upon this cephas i will build my church..., i will give YOU the keys of the kingdom...

That is pretty clear my dear, peter was given d keys, he also had his name changed from simon to cephas. Unles u are trying to misinterprete d word of God.

U r Peter, upon this rock ( the revelation he had dt Jesus was the son of God) would he build his church. Funny u! The Church is not built on man but on Christ. Is it not strange to u dt d church could be built on man when Christ is d chief cornerstone? Lol!
The keys to d kingdom have been handed over to d church (not d building, o! But of d body of believers of which Christ is d head).

Ubenedictus:
so u do nt blive dat Jesus gave his authority to d apostles? Wat does matt 18:18 say? Is dat not authority been given?

Christ is the Head of the Church, His Body. His authority is in His Name and that is for the Body:
Ephesians 1:22,23
22 and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, 23 which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Ephesians 2:6
6 And He raised us up together with Him and made us sit down together [giving us joint seating with Him] in the heavenly sphere [by virtue of our being] in Christ Jesus (the Messiah, the Anointed One).


However, NOBODY can EVER claim the right of Headship over the Church ; Peter NEVER did!!!

[b]The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2 feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3 neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
1 Peter 5:1-4
Written by Peter while at Babylon/Rome. (I doubt this Babylon=Rome claim! Afterall Paul too went to Rome and wrote the Epistle to the Romans!)

did u read what u quoted? Read d bold, paul wasn't taught by anyone but even him had to meet d apostles to confirm his teaching he said 'so dat he doesn't run in vain'.

Yes bro, it's called accountability! Paul too had to openly rebuke Peter at a point! No superiority there!!!

Ubenedictus:
thank God u agree that the presbyter and d bishop are men in d church who do posses some authority.

U have quoted me wrongly. Kindly post d full quote

Scholar8200:

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.
Galatians 1:18,19

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Galatians 1:11,12

He did not go to Peter for teaching/feeding.

That he was like the spokesman does not mean he was their head. Even Jesus did not choose one when they wanted to know who will be the greatest among them. The council at Jerusalem in Acts 15 suggests a maintained sense of equality among the Apostles: James issued what will be the conclusion of the deliberations neither by Peter's behest, nor subject to Peter's approval!

Christ already gave them (not one) this authority (more like an assignment) in John 15: 20b,27(affirmed in Ephesians 2:20). The Authority of Christ is in His Name and that Name is available to all that believe. However, His authority as the Head of the Church is in the hands of NOBODY!

i thought u or is it bobby argued dat they didnt posses d said authority.

Paul didnt go for feeding but he went that his teaching may b confirmed so he 'wouldnt have ran in vain'.