In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? - Religion (36) - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? (64947 Views)
Photos: Nigerian Man Spotted Praying On His Knees In An Airplane / Don't Use IJN To Replace In Jesus Name (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) ... (33) (34) (35) (36) (37) (38) (39) ... (62) (Reply) (Go Down)
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by Nobody: 11:59am On Jul 15, 2013 |
St.Ola: The remarkable thing, however, about Peter’s alleged bishopric in Rome, is that the New Testament has not one word to say about it. The word Rome occurs only nine times in the Bible, and never is Peter mentioned in connection with it. There is no allusion to Rome in either of his epistles. Paul’s journey to that city is recorded in great detail (Acts 27 and 28). There is in fact no New Testament evidence, nor any historical proof of any kind, that Peter ever was in Rome. All rests on legend. The first twelve chapters of the book of Acts tell of Peter’s ministry and travels in Palestine and Syria. Surely if he had gone to the capital of the empire, that would have been mentioned. We may well ask, if Peter was superior to Paul, why does he receive so little attention after Paul comes on the scene? |
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by StOla: 11:59am On Jul 15, 2013 |
El Guapo: Yes you have a personal relationship with your maker. If we are to argue the notion behind your statement, the most radical conclusion would be to not have religious leaders at all. Each man should be self-sufficient with his/her Christianity. But in a reality where men ask other mere mortals to pray to God on their behalf, seek out prophets to know what tomorrow holds for them, seek out spiritual leaders for deliverance and miracles, all of these are even done on TV, some via telephone calls. Then by the same token of your arguememt all of the above is wrong. If you concur, then I rest my case but remind you that such steps taken above yields results just as those who solicit intercession from the Saints in heaven get their results too. If you disagree that the bolded above is not wrong, then why should soliciting the saints to pray to God for oneself be wrong? |
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by onyeks(m): 12:08pm On Jul 15, 2013 |
This sentimental argument is uncalled for. Everybody stick to ur belief, buh simple question, why do u ask ur pastor to pray (iintercede) for u? |
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by Nobody: 12:14pm On Jul 15, 2013 |
[b] One of the pillars that the Rome Catholic Church states that they are the first and true church of Christ that had there beginning from the apostle Peter. They claim that the line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. In its concrete form, apostolic succession is the line of bishops that goes from Rome stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops claim to have their lineage of predecessors traced back to the time of the apostles; specifically the apostle Simon Peter who is stated to be the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church. The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in The Bible. Today, as we look at The Bible and the Roman Catholic Church we can see that there are many differences concerning doctrine. These differences are not a simple misunderstanding but at times appear to be the complete opposite of The Bible. When one studies out the major differences between the Church of Rome and The Bible it is not difficult to see that they have not preserved the doctrine of Christ or The Bible. If anyone were to study such subjects as infant baptism, the mass, Immaculate Conception of Mary, eternal torment in hell, graven images, or the Sunday Sabbath they would not be able to support these ideas from The Bible. In fact, as stated earlier, these doctrines are completely opposite of The Bible. These ideas and practices have their roots in Paganism and Babylonian religions. Where did the departure of simple Bible truth enter the church? Like any seeker of truth, let’s go back to the beginning to see where these false doctrines came into the church. With the claim of apostolic succession, we’ll go back to the apostle Peter himself and see how the departing of the truth came to be. When we look in The Bible there is no recorded of the apostle ever being in Rome much less being the head of the church. There are countless supposed historical accounts that Peter was in Rome but they all come from Catholic sources and are not first hand accounts. The earliest accounts are of Catholic fathers but even they do not agree with The Bible. So let’s look to The Bible and see why the apostle Peter was never in Rome and couldn’t be the founder of the Roman Catholic Church. Below are eleven major New Testament proofs, which completely disprove the claim that Peter was in Rome from the time of Claudius until Nero. These biblical points speak for themselves and ANY ONE of them is sufficient to prove the ridiculousness of the Catholic claim. Notice what God tells us! The truth IS conclusive! PROOF ONE: We should consider Christ’s commission to Peter. This is often very embarrassing to Catholics, because Christ commissioned Peter to become chief minister to the CIRCUMCISED, not to uncircumcised Gentiles. "The gospel of the CIRCUMCISION was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles  " (Gal. 2:7- .Here we have it in the clearest of language. It was Paul, NOT Peter, who was commissioned to be the chief Apostle to the Gentiles. And who was it that wrote the Epistle to the ROMANS? It certainly WASN’T Peter! "And when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace [i.e., the gift or office] that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal. 2:9). Paul further mentioned his special office as the Gentile Apostle in II Timothy 1:11: "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles." PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This precludes him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile community. PROOF TWO: Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter. "I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (Rom. 15:16). How clear! Paul had the direct charge from Christ in this matter. He even further relates in Romans 15:18 that it was Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed." PAUL Established the Only TRUE Church at Rome during the apostolic era. PROOF THREE: We are told by Paul himself that it was he -- not Peter –who was going to officially found the Roman Church. "I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11). Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. However, the Catholics would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten years before -- in the reign of Claudius. What nonsense! Of course you understand that NEITHER Peter nor Paul established the Catholic Church! But these proofs are given to illustrate that it is utterly impossible for PETER to have been in any way associated with ANY Church at Rome. PROOF FOUR: We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another man’s foundation. "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN’S FOUNDATION"(Rom. 15:20). If Peter had "founded" the Roman Church some ten years before this statement, this represents a real affront to Peter. This statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this time to "found" any church. Peter Not in Rome PROOF FIVE: At the end of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! See Romans 16 --read the whole chapter! Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didn’t he mention Peter? -- Peter simply wasn’t there! PROOF SIX: Some four years after Paul wrote Romans, he was conveyed as a prisoner to Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar. When the Christian community in Rome heard of Paul’s arrival, they all went to meet him. "When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to meet us" (Acts 28:15). Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them. This would have been extraordinary had Peter been in Rome, for Luke always mentions by name important Apostles in his narration of Acts. But he says nothing of Peter’s meeting with Paul. Why? Because Peter was not in Rome! PROOF SEVEN: When Paul finally arrived at Rome, the first thing he did was to summon "the chief of the Jews together" (Acts 28:17) to whom he "expounded and testified the kingdom of God" (Verse 23). But what is amazing is that these chief Jewish elders claimed they knew very little even about the basic teachings of Christ. All they knew was that ‘‘as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Verse 22). Then Paul began to explain to them the basic teachings of Christ on the Kingdom of God. Some believed -- the majority didn’t. Now, what does all this mean? It means that if Peter, who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for 14 long years before this time, AND WAS STILL THERE -- how could these Jewish leaders have known so little about even the basic truths of Christianity? This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome prior to 59 A.D. No Mention of Peter in Paul’s Letters PROOF EIGHT: After the rejection of the Jewish elders, Paul remained in his own hired house for two years. During that time he wrote Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter. The obvious reason is -- the Apostle to the circumcision wasn’t there! PROOF NINE: With the expiration of Paul’s two year’s imprisonment, he was released. But about four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent back a prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at length in II Timothy. In regard to his trial, notice what Paul said in II Timothy 4:16. "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men [in Rome] forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge." This means, if we believe the Catholics, that Peter forsook Paul, for they tell us Peter was very much present at Rome during this time! Peter once denied Christ, but that was before he was converted. To believe that Peter was in Rome during Paul’s trial, is untenable! PROOF TEN: The Apostle Paul distinctly informs us that Peter was not in Rome in 65 A.D. -- even though Catholics say he was. Paul said: "Only Luke is with me" (II Tim. 4:11). The truth becomes very plain. Paul wrote TO Rome; he had been IN Rome; and at the end wrote at least six epistles FROM Rome; and not only does he NEVER mention Peter, but at the last moment says: "Only Luke is with me." Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome! PROOF ELEVEN: Peter’s death is foretold by Christ himself (John 21:18-19.) “. When you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Hmm, it sounds like Christ himself said that Peter would die of old age. Why would Peter’s death in old age glorify God? Peter was the one that ran from Christ the night of his trial and crucifixion. This exchange is after Christ rose from the tomb and Peter was forgiven three times, just as he denied his master three times before the cock crowed that fateful night of Christ’s trial. Where was Peter the apostle of Christ? At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows that he was elsewhere. The evidence is abundant and conclusive. By paying attention to God’s own words, no one need be deceived. Peter was NEVER the Bishop of Rome! Near 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldn’t sit or eat with Gentiles. Strange that the "Roman bishop" would have nothing to do with Gentiles in 51 A.D.! Later in about 66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Remember that Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED. Why was he in Babylon? Because history shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ’s time as there were in Palestine. It is no wonder we find him in the East. Perhaps this is the reason why scholars say Peter’s writings are strongly Aramaic in flavor, the type of Aramaic spoken in Babylon. Why of course! Peter was used to their eastern dialect. At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows he was elsewhere. As previously mentioned there are many supposed historical accounts of Peter in Rome but none of them are first hand accounts and should not be put above the many accounts of The Bible. We know from The Bible that the apostle Peter was not in Rome. There was a Simon Peter in Rome after the death of Christ but it is not the apostle Peter that was a fisherman from Jerusalem. Who is this Simon Peter that was in Rome during the middle of the first century? This is how the great false Church of Rome got its start; along with the first leader Simon Peter not the apostle Peter. [/b] |
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by Nobody: 12:14pm On Jul 15, 2013 |
CAMEROONPRIDE: anuofia. only a dumb azz like u and that person can see the link between the Church(catholic) and a mere political entity like a country. Seems u ve been mixing morning fresh with alomo bitters hence ur sense of rationality seems so impaled! What exactly are u saying? Ur comment above obviously is in sharp contrast with d issue in question? Another dumb analogy that's is so awkward and so irrelevant! Dumber azz u will always remain! Pls make some sense for once |
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by Acidosis(m): 12:16pm On Jul 15, 2013 |
onyeks: This sentimental argument is uncalled for. Everybody stick to ur belief, buh simple question, why do u ask ur pastor to pray (iintercede) for u? The Pastor that preach to me everyday or the one that died over 1900 years ago? btw, don't you tell REV. FATHER to pray for you? |
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by StOla: 12:17pm On Jul 15, 2013 |
naijadeyhia: Indeed St.Peter's recorded death in Rome is not recorded by the New Testament, same with St.Paul. That their death is not in a New Testament book does not imply they both did not die eventually, instead it again brings to light the limitations of the bible as regards the life and times of its many characters. No credible claims have been made to the contrary to suggest the Church's debatable claims are wrong. Peter was Christ chosen for primacy. That a more effective evangelist in the person on St.Paul was personally converted by a risen Christ only suggest he was an asset the church needed and Christ wanted. The early church fathers in their writings do not disprove church claims that St.Peter met his death in Rome. So as shepherd, he lead the church wherever he found himself, be it Rome. Having died there as a consequence of evangelizing there, he was succeeded by a fellow "Roman" evangelist, thus establishing a Roman primacy over the church to be distinguished from Peter's Christ given primacy. The Catholic church always have historical proofs however debatable. |
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by ktjohnpaul(m): 12:21pm On Jul 15, 2013 |
khiaa: Grace is the very reason anybody is saved! It is an unmerited favour, it is infused by the Spirit and received in Baptism; is sanctifying and deifying. "Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation" (2 Cor 5:17). If anyone is full of Grace, the person has Grace in its fullness all time. This means that the person is without grace, don't forget that it may not have been merited, like in the case of the BVM. |
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by ktjohnpaul(m): 12:31pm On Jul 15, 2013 |
naijadeyhia: Yea, Like Martin Luther tried to peel off James 2:24-26 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead. I figure out that when scripture does not suit some of our interpretation we simply get rid of it, however this does not change what God says, or who he is. Something is basically wrong with selective interpretation. |
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by linearity: 12:36pm On Jul 15, 2013 |
Syncan: Thanks for seeing my point...He was God before and created Heaven and Earth, took p flesh and blood became Man, then took up His Godly form after resurrection. If God the Son was before Abraham as you have rightly stated, how is it possible for Mary to become his Mother?...or was Mary exiting before Abraham as well and was later reincarnated? Mary was a vessel used by God to bring forth His only begotten Son. No biological or Chemical reactions or cells divided for Jesus to be given birth to....just like Joseph sperms were not involved, Mary's ovaries were not also used in the formation of Jesus in her womb. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, He cannot be the Son of Mary at the same time in the same sense...except you are of the opinion that the Holy Ghost or God had some biological relationship (the type of relationship Joseph would have had with her) with Mary that resulted in the birth of Jesus...Because that is the only reason the Catholic can explain these doctrines out and it is blasphemy against God to suggest or even think about. 1 Like |
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by bukatyne(f): 12:37pm On Jul 15, 2013 |
gree-die: No, she did not. You must really be limiting God if you think there must be a sper.m and egg to form Jesus in the flesh |
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by penny01502: 12:41pm On Jul 15, 2013 |
to all fxxck brain out there, roman catholic are not worshiping the blessed virgin mary, the immaculate mother of our saviour Jesus christ, but we honour her cos she deserve it. whoesover said catholic catholic worship mary just express his/her sense of ignorance. |
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by ktjohnpaul(m): 12:49pm On Jul 15, 2013 |
naijadeyhia: CATHOLIC BELIEFS AGAINST NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANITY We should never put our own personal interpretation on scripture, unless it agrees with the Tradition of the Catholic Church. St. Peter himself warns against this practice in 2 Peter 1 and 2 Peter 3. After over 1600 years of Catholic Biblical history (Pope Damasus I and the Catholic Church approved the canon of the bible in the late fourth Century), the great scholars of the bible like St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas have already got everything figured out for you. Believing that our small 21st century minds can figure out 4000 year old verses that were written in a very different language and culture, in a very different time, and with very different idiomatic expressions and meanings is the height of pride. You might as well say that you can understand physics on your own without first reading the writings of Einstein and Newton. That is why the Magisterium is needed to interpret scripture. Jesus took the Kingdom away from the Jews in Matthew 21:43, "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof" and gave it to the Church in Matthew 16:19. "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." That is why Pope Damasus had the power to approve the Canon, in the fourth century long after Jesus had risen. Take note that many people like you at that time did not accept the Bible as the divinely inspired word of God. Their arguments were similar to yours, so you are not alone, many have gone before you. "Repent, for the Kingdom of God IS AT HAND!", He said! |
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by bukatyne(f): 12:52pm On Jul 15, 2013 |
gree-die: If you are going by the route of martyrs, was Peter the first Martyr? What do you mean by who founded your religion and mine? |
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by ktjohnpaul(m): 12:53pm On Jul 15, 2013 |
naijadeyhia: Are you kidding! Do you know that the Bible is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible and yet many people say they are Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone) Christians? Can you please show me where the Holy Trinity is mention anywhere in the Bible? Yet you have believed it hook line and sinker. We need to wake up. |
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by Nobody: 12:56pm On Jul 15, 2013 |
byrron:dumb azz next time don't quote me, when u have no clues about what we are talking about or the initial comment. suberu |
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by Oredys(m): 12:56pm On Jul 15, 2013 |
frosbel: Undiluted truth. |
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by Nobody: 12:56pm On Jul 15, 2013 |
ORODEONE: MY BROTHERS N SISTERS NO MATA HOW HARD U TRY 2 CONVINCE THESE MARY ADDITCS THEY WIL NEVA UNDERSTAND, THE PRINCE OF THIS WORLD HAS BLINDED THEIR UNDERSTANDING THEY READ THE BIBLE LIKE STORY BOOK they nid 2 b trully born again n recieve the holy spirit who wil open their understanding to this truth,most of dem find it difficult 2 understand coz thats where they were born into so is like a tradition 2 dem .MARY IS DEAD N AWAITING JUDGEMENT PLS LET HER BE !she may not even know that some people are worshipping her! 1 Like |
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by Nobody: 12:57pm On Jul 15, 2013 |
Acidosis:  .. LMAO |
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by Nobody: 1:04pm On Jul 15, 2013 |
Please all my catholic apologetics please indulge me by answering this question: WHO IS THE HOLY SPIRIT AND WHY IS THE HOLY SPIRIT GIVEN TO BELIEVERS (THE CHURCH)? |
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by Oxygenmayo(m): 1:06pm On Jul 15, 2013 |
the demons go tanda gidigba..no name can save a person except the name of Jesus..#UdonHear |
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by AmorousT(m): 1:16pm On Jul 15, 2013 |
gree-die:Y would any1 dat properly sucked his mother's breast b bold 2 say dat U Love D Son & Despise D Mother.. Abeg, Is Dat Nt Insanity? |
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by italo: 1:28pm On Jul 15, 2013 |
Amorous T: Y would any1 dat properly sucked his mother's breast b bold 2 say dat U Love D Son & Despise D Mother.. Abeg, Is Dat Nt Insanity? If it isnt, it has to be close to it. |
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by ktjohnpaul(m): 1:28pm On Jul 15, 2013 |
Thou Art Peter One of the great divides between Catholics and protestants (those who protest against the Catholic Church) is the role of Peter. Catholics claim that Jesus himself made Peter his earthly successor as the leader of His newly created Church, while protestants believe that Peter was just another apostle. Let’s check out these claims using sacred scripture as our guide. In John 1:42, Jesus changes the Apostle Simon’s name to Cephas, or Peter, a name which means “Rock”. Now we know from scripture that Jesus is the Rock, or Cornerstone (1 Corinthians 10:4). Therefore, it can be assumed from this name change that Jesus is handing on to Peter what He Himself is, Rock. John 1:41-42: He first found his brother Simon, and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which means Christ). He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter). (**NOTE - The above scripture totally negates the protestant argument that Jesus called Peter "petros" or "petras", which is Greek. Jesus spoke Aramaic, which means that he called Peter "Cephas", which means "Rock" in Aramaic.) The difference, of course, is that Jesus is “The Rock”, while Peter is “A Rock”. This changing of names follows a very important pattern in scripture – Abram (father) became Abraham (father of many nations). Jacob (He who grasps the heel) became Israel (Ruling with God) when his mission was changed when he become the father of 12 tribes of the nation of Israel. Notice carefully that Abraham and Jacob became leaders and fathers following their name change. A male name change in the bible indicates leadership and fatherhood. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus creates and builds His Church (not "churches"  on Peter, the Rock. Notice also that even hell can't stop the everlasting existence of His Church."And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. " In the following verse 19, Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom. "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed, even in heaven.” This is a direct parallel with the Old Testament Isaiah 22:20-24: And this shall be in that day: I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah. And I will clothe him with your vestment, and I will strengthen him with your belt, and I will give your authority to his hand. And he shall be like a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place the key of the house of David upon his shoulder. And when he opens, no one will close. And when he closes, no one will open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a trustworthy place. And he will be upon a throne of glory in the house of his father. And they will suspend over him all the glory of his father’s house: various kinds of vessels and every little article, from the vessels of bowls even to every instrument of music. Modern day bible readers may not understand the meaning of what giving Peter the keys to the kingdom means, but the people who were actually there when Jesus said it understood it completely. The Old Testament parallel which they were all familiar with in Isaiah said that Eliakim would have the complete authority of King David, the ultimate great ruler of Israel. He would have his throne of glory while ruling in his place. Being a peg in a trustworthy place is akin to the center pole of a tent that holds up the entire tent. It has to stand tall and straight for the entire tent to stand up. And besides being a ruler, he would also be a father, or papa. Catholics refer to this “papa” figure as Pope. According to Matthew 16:19, Jesus said that Peter would have the power to bind and loose anything on earth, and Peter’s decision would also be bound and loosed in heaven. Most protestant churches do not believe in that kind of authority by any man on earth, but there it is, right there in the Bible. In Matthew 14:29, we learn that the only apostle to walk on water like Jesus was Peter! In John 21:15-17, Jesus directs Peter to feed his sheep. Then, when they had dined, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He said to him again: “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He said to him a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was very grieved that he had asked him a third time, “Do you love me?” And so he said to him: “Lord, you know all things. You know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my sheep." Notice that Jesus tells this to Peter three times, the exact number of times that Peter denied him. The fact that Jesus told Peter this, and no other, indicates that Jesus considers Peter to be the leader of His Church on earth, not John, James, or Matthew. In Luke 22:31-32, Jesus tells Peter that satan wants to sift him like wheat. “And the Lord said: “Simon, Simon! Behold, Satan has asked for you, so that he may sift you like wheat. But I have prayed for you, so that your faith may not fail, and so that you, once converted, may confirm your brothers.” Notice satan didn’t ask for any other apostle to sift. Why? Because satan knows that if he gets the leader, the rest will scatter (remember how the Philistines scattered after David killed Goliath? Remember how the apostles took off after Jesus was captured in the Garden of Gethsemane? (And by the way, Satan is using that exact same method today; using church scandals with the leaders to make the rest of us flee The Church). Jesus then tells Peter that He has prayed for HIM, so that HIS faith will not fail, so that he can be completely converted, and then HE can strengthen the other apostles. Sounds like a leadership conference, doesn’t it? In John 20:3-6, the younger John and the older Peter both run to the tomb of Jesus to see for themselves if Christ had risen or not. The younger John gets there first, but deferring to his leader, does not go in, leaving that honor to Peter. "Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb. They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first; and stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying" In Acts 1:15-26, a meeting is held to replace Judas, led by Peter. In those days, Peter, rising up in the midst of the brothers, said (now the crowd of men altogether was about one hundred and twenty): “Noble brothers, the Scripture must be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit predicted by the mouth of David about Judas, who was the leader of those who apprehended Jesus. This is a proof text for apostolic succession, by the way. The leader of this meeting is none other than Peter. Matthias is chosen as the new 12th apostle. In Acts 2:14, at Pentecost, it is Peter preaching the sermon, after all of the apostles were empowered by the Holy Spirit. But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and he spoke to them: “Men of Judea, and all those who are staying in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and incline your ears to my words." Later on, in Acts 3:6-8, the first post-Pentecost miracle is performed by Peter. But Peter said: “Silver and gold is not mine. But what I have, I give to you. In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, rise up and walk.” And taking him by the right hand, he lifted him up. And immediately his legs and feet were strengthened. And leaping up, he stood and walked around. And he entered with them into the temple, walking and leaping and praising God. When Ananias and Sapphira lied about the money they were giving to the Church, in Acts 5:1-10, it was Peter who inflicted their punishment (death). When God decided that all foods were now okay to eat, God revealed it to Peter in a dream, Acts 10:9-16. The doing away with Kosher food dietary laws was a VERY big deal in Jewish culture. The fact that it was revealed to Peter indicates leadership. It was Peter who baptized the first Gentiles into His Church, in Acts 10:44-48. Whenever the list of Apostles is given it is always Peter who is listed first, in Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, and Acts 1:13. In Galatians 1:18, we learn that St. Paul, before beginning his public ministry, spent 15 days with Peter. Wouldn't you have loved to hear those conversations! Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. In the Old Testament, there was the authoritarian Seat of Moses (Matthew 23:2), which was handed down to Joshua and subsequent Jewish leaders after Moses’ death. The New Testament Chair of Peter is directly analogous to the Old Testament Seat of Moses. Let no one fool you brethren. 1 Like |
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by Nobody: 1:35pm On Jul 15, 2013 |
ktjohnpaul: Thou Art Peter You have allowed yourself to be fooled already and do not even know it. Let me re-phrase that. You have fooled yourself already so how can anyone else fool you? |
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by ktjohnpaul(m): 1:48pm On Jul 15, 2013 |
naijadeyhia: Please all my catholic apologetics please indulge me by answering this question: The Holy Spirit is the 3rd person of the Blessed Trinity, and the one most active in the world today. He is the Paraclete of the Church Militant. The Bible says that the Holy Spirit created the world (Genesis 1:2), led Jesus into the desert (Matthew 4:1), comes to us at Confirmation (Acts 8:18), and intercedes for us in sighs that we cannot understand (Romans 8:26). In Luke 1:35, The Holy Spirit came upon Mary,and the power of the Most High overshadowed her; therefore the child she bore was called holy,the Son of God." Here's Why the Church is given the Holy Spirit John 16:13: When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. Does this sound like you should read the Bible alone and interpret it the way you understand? NO. Need healing of mind/body/soul/tongue/emotions? Invoke the Holy Spirit. Inviting the Holy Spirit to take over your life is strength for the journey of the rest of your life! Just look at how Peter's life (he went from being a weak Jesus-denying coward to become a totally fearless evangelist) was changed when the Holy Spirit took over his life. The same thing can happen to each and every one of us ! All of these changes may not happen overnight, but in God's good time. Always remember that The Holy Spirit is a person, like Jesus, and like God the Father. The Holy Spirit is not some kind of generic force, like lightning or love. The Holy Spirit IS A PERSON. |
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by Nobody: 1:52pm On Jul 15, 2013 |
ktjohnpaul: Before expound on your answer i would now want you to answer this question; WHO IS THE POPE AND WHAT IS HIS ROLE TO BELIEVERS? ALSO THE BELIEVERS WHO BELIEVE THE POPE HAS A ROLE OVER THEM WHAT ARE THESE BELIEVERS BELIEFS |
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by ktjohnpaul(m): 2:05pm On Jul 15, 2013 |
naijadeyhia: To avoid information overload, I will prefer you to deal with the Biblical texts I have outlined in my previous submission. Like a gentleman, let us engage in this discussion in a manner that is civil. EMPHASIS IS ON LEARNING THE TRUTH. Cos this can save us. |
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by Nobody: 2:07pm On Jul 15, 2013 |
ktjohnpaul: INFORMATION OVERLOAD? ON MY PART OR YOURS? QUESTION 2 HAS A HIDDEN LINK TO QUESTION 1 SO IF YOU CAN ANSWER QUESTION 2 THEN I WILL CONNECT BOTH FOR YOU SO YOU CAN HAVE KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING |
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by StOla: 2:13pm On Jul 15, 2013 |
naijadeyhia: Again, the Catholic Church relative to the Bible is prone to say, "If you accept the Bible, you must accept us for the Bible has been preserved by us and has come to you through us." My friends, the Lord is responsible for the preservation of His Word as He said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but My Words shall not pass away" (Mark 13:31). Should it even be granted that the Catholic Church were the agency through which the Word was preserved for a season, what would it signify? Further, should one be ready to concede that the Bible was handed to us, in a sense by the Catholic Church, does it follow that we must believe in the Catholic Church in order to accept the Bible? If I must repossess the newspaper from the mouth of my neighbor's dog, does it follow that I must believe in my neighbor's dog in order to accept what I read in the paper? Those who accept the Bible and the Bible alone plainly show that they reject all else. The bible is a product of the church,so I see no way the product would be placed above its producers. The bible did not drop from the sky, neither was it written at the behest of some divine instructions. That you regard the letters of St.Paul as scripture is because the church made it scripture. Besides the old testament which existed as scripture to the Hebrews, the composition of the New Testament(both the 4 gospel books and the epistles) was made with church authority. Firstly all the books were written by church fathers, infact the 1st gospel book written was that of St. Mark(his authorship is even disputed), written b4 any of the known 12 disciples wrote theirs. Hence, having either witnessed/learnt-about Christ's ministry, a church father went about making the 1st documentation before the other disciples followed suit. Even the Pauline letters were written by Paul as a church leader to the faithful. So where exactly was the bible in the New Testament that was yet an ongoing reality you claim was exalted above the authority of the church? By what authority did the church declare some books scripture in the midst of multitudes of literature to choose from? The church emanated from the teachings of Christ. The bible emanated from the teachings of the church as guided by its witness of Christ's ministry and information passed on by oral tradition (Paul and Timothy never witnessed Christ yet they taught what had been relayed to them, and what they wrote and instructed as Church leaders was sanctioned by a church generation that came after them as scripture). If the same church decide to sanction any of the old sidelined Christian literature as scripture, then it would only be employing the same authority that defined the New Testament as scripture. Without the Church's authority, the New Testament could as well be some literature work of Petronius Arbiter. The bible exist to propagate the teachings of Christ under the direction of the church. The church defined what is to be called a bible, the bible did not define the church. Christ. Church. Bible. |
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by Nobody: 2:27pm On Jul 15, 2013 |
St.Ola: CORRECTION! THE BIBLE CONTAINS THE WORDS OF GOD AND NOT OF MAN. THE SCRIPTURES CONTAINED IN THE BIBLE WERE DIVINELY INSPIRED (2 TIMOTHY 3.16-17). THE WORD OF GOD IS CHRIST HIMSELF SO THIS IS THE RIGHT ORDER CHRIST (THE WORD OF GOD), THE CHURCH |
| Re: In Jesus Name, All Knees Bow; In Mary's Name, What Happens? by tesmony(m): 2:30pm On Jul 15, 2013 |
''Hail mary FULL OF GRACE The lord is wit YOU'' (angle Gabriel) luk1:26 do asked somebody 2 pray 4u cuz u can't make it 2 church on sunday..TAlk of some whom bear our lord n saviour Jesus christ Whom we believe 2b with Him in heaven..women are soft an tender esp wit matters of Children thru 1women sin came yet anoda redeemtion...the first miracle by Jesus as recorded in the bible was influenced by mary at d wedding in canaan.is it not common to find even matured men sing praise to their mother 'SWEET MOTHER,' what more Of the mother of JESUS christ .because all we need is d wine in d bottle and not d bottle .,hippocrite how do carry d fine efficiently without d wine container? Think and think again catholic had never n wil never worship mary we Honour her' do no what shame n benevolence she took d infant Jesus what names she might hav been called no b every account bible give if not no book go contain o! ,'Praise b to Jesus And Honour to mary' |
(1) (2) (3) ... (33) (34) (35) (36) (37) (38) (39) ... (62) (Reply)
Tina Bright: Why I Left My Husband & Married Pastor Adeeyo / 7 Things The Bible Forbids, But We Do Anyway / Rape: Victoria Nkong 'Bishop Akinola Micheal Fowowe Attempted To Rape Me'
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 204 |