Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,194,770 members, 7,955,927 topics. Date: Sunday, 22 September 2024 at 06:53 PM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? (8201 Views)
Daddy Freeze To Pastor Adeboye: "Pope Drinks Beer And Doesn't Pay Tithe" / Coffin Of The First Pope Allegedly Proves Jesus Never Existed / Ten Proofs Peter Was Not The "Pope" At Rome. (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Jolliano: 2:11pm On Nov 14, 2015 |
accountable: If they wrote contrary to scripture, how come they still chose the books that they were writing contrary to as the NT? They could have easily made a different list. |
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Ubenedictus(m): 2:54pm On Nov 14, 2015 |
accountable:hahaha, what simon related/said is written right there in acts 15 and that put an end to d argument even James went on to refer to it. |
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Ubenedictus(m): 2:58pm On Nov 14, 2015 |
Bobbysworld28:people can teach on thing and behave differently, infallibity is an issue of outright teaching whether in words or in letter. Actions and behaviours are totally different issues. JESUS once said to obey d pharisee but not follow their example, there is a difference btw a weakness in character and an error in teaching, it is the later that we discuss under infallibility. |
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Ubenedictus(m): 3:10pm On Nov 14, 2015 |
accountable:juliano has already shown sevaral documents that shows d teaching predate vatican 1, but strangely enough you don't care. That show u are not honest. The last line places a curse. That is dogmatic definition. U r not longer free to disbelieve the pope.... Even when it is contrary to scripture. Before then a catholic could choose not to believe in papal infallibility. That is when u were no longer free to question papal teachings. But The apostles were willing to have their teachings scrutinisedit seems u didnt read d declaration well, when d pope speaks ex cathedra he cannot contradict d scripture, he like d apostles and councils before are guided by the holyspirit and cant teach error. As i said earlier apostolic teaching arent subject to pick and chose either u accept or u dont. |
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Nobody: 3:21pm On Nov 14, 2015 |
Ubenedictus:From previous discourse I am not at all surprised at this ur answer. U can even pass for all these new age Pastors with some sly answers! So whatever Peter taught ppl by his action to d Gentiles, u r excusing it as long as he did not pen it down. Pls produce a document showing dt attitude and behaviours are excluded in d 'infallibility list' |
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Ubenedictus(m): 3:35pm On Nov 14, 2015 |
Scholar8200:actually what peter said was contrary to d know scriptures, d know scripture was d old testament and it proscribes circumcision, peter said lay no burden! He said that without alluding to any scripture and james certainly did not try to correct him instead he said 'as peter has spoken'! Pauls own contribution was interesting because he didnt try to instruct anyone he and barnabas simply went on relating their experiences! It was peter who decleared "we believe". And brought d heated debate to an end. D pharisee didnt ask him were is dat in d bible? D bible is d only authority how dare u teach doctrine without it. The tenor of your post suggests that Paul had no right rebuking Peter because the latter had a unique authority when even Paul saidi never infered d above, when someone practice wat is different frm what he teaches then he has to be called to order irrespective of wu he is. Dat takes nothing away from his teaching authority. But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:how does this concern d discussion? Paul went to jerusalem to ensure his teaching was in tandem with others, he was approved. On a different not it is interest dat paul call peter an apostle to d jews even though d said peter was d one who opened d door for d gentiles. |
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Ubenedictus(m): 4:09pm On Nov 14, 2015 |
[quote author=Scholar8200 post=40009778] In vain do we find Paul alluding to ANY unique authority handed to ANY apostle over the others! In fact Peter was even the one who mentioned that Paul was given some revelations which were hard to be understood!!! Now if he was the 'head' (whatever you mean by that), we should shudder that he was bypassed at this point![/quotd] did peter imply he was ignorant of those revelation? He simply told people to be careful as some ignorant people like misinterpreting d writtings of Christ they find hard to understand. Rather I will say it was because they were with one accord under the Spirit's headship and they could therefore say:they were in one acord after they had debated heatedly. And that they were in one accord see:how did they get to be of one accord? At the bging there was no one accord! The agreements only flowed after peter spoke! Shed more light on this piece stating clearly:i already explain this, in d council peter said "we believe..." in a place where people had varied opinion, he claimed to speak for all! Nobody stood up to say i disagree, not euen d pharisees! He ended d debate, James said as symeon has spoken! His teaching is unchallenged an form d basis for whatever will b james judgement. Peter didnt need to conduct a census or ask 4 agreement b4 saying "we believe...". P.S. The scenario below does not agree with Peter having a 'unique authority'good peter just ate wit d jews and baptised them even though some seemed against it, he had recieve a new revelation and even d xtians came that he might explain and teach d new directive he is following. He immediately did. His revelation is correct whether or not they assent to it. |
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Scholar8200(m): 4:26pm On Nov 14, 2015 |
Ubenedictus:What Peter said was that salvation is not by circumcision hence why burden the gentiles with what is not their business (since they are not Abraham's biological descendants) this is in agreement with the Word:Jesus NEVER alluded to keeping the law as a prerequisite for salvation and that was Peter's stress! Just as Peter related his. Besides, to show that the Spirit is the principal Figure, Paul had already opposed the error before Acts 15. Think of it!!! Paul a hardcore pharisee but was converted and did not attempt to circumcise the gentiles!!! It was not as though Peter was correcting a mistake Paul was making, rather, it was a confirmation of what the Spirit had already Inspired Paul to forbid because: SALVATION IS BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH! So, the letter would not really be a surprise to Paul's converts because he had already taught them the centrality of faith in salvation. The pharisees were new to the concept of salvation by faith but they obtained it so. Besides, can you show me what portion of the Scriptures commands free Gentiles (not Israelites) to be circumcised which Peter contradicted? And, did Israel attempt circumcising the men of those nations that they did not kill but brought to subjection? That was their perception. Philip had preached and baptised the Ethiopian Eunuch before Peter went to Cornelius' house! |
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Ubenedictus(m): 4:28pm On Nov 14, 2015 |
Scholar8200:and their debate was brought to an end Besides, you may make fun but thank God they sans your bias knew where the Inspiration for their decision came from- not ANY man but the Spirit!i never disputed d fact that d spirit is in charge, when catholic discuss infalibility they must as a rule admit that d holy spirit is in charge. I do not dispute it, it is a fact. D question is how did d holyspirit put an end to d debate? It is thru peter. The passage James referred to was to buttress the fact that the Gospel was meant for the Gentiles too:now u are confirming my points Yes and none of those experiences were relayed in the letter!letter to d galatians and d council in jerusalem which happened first? |
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Scholar8200(m): 4:38pm On Nov 14, 2015 |
Ubenedictus:The pharisees were the opposing side, not the apostles and elders. That has been shown to you already. Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. Those were the dissenters. Peter said what he said because he knew the other apostles and elders already believed this! Else why did Paul and Barnabas oppose them sans the council? In fact Paul called the purveyors of that teaching false brethren and from the tone of 2 Corinth and Galatians, you can tell there were some of the sect of the Pharisees that still continued the error! They did not come to be tutored, they confronted him and he had to explain himself. |
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Scholar8200(m): 4:46pm On Nov 14, 2015 |
Ubenedictus:Thanks to the Spirit Who leads into all truth, and the unity among the apostles, elders and church against the error of the sect of the pharisees. Through the Apostles and elders. Of course the letter to the Galatians else why did Paul not quote the communique to the pharisees? Besides, the scenario described by Paul in Galatians 2:1-5 fits perfectly with Acts 15:1,2 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 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. 3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: 4 and that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: 5 to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you Galatians 2:1-5 One of the reasons they went to Jerusalem is the second highlighted but already, by Revelation of the Spirit (not Peter's instruction), they opposed the error. 1 Like 1 Share |
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Nobody: 8:12pm On Nov 14, 2015 |
Ubenedictus: Joliano's documents didn't show any reference to infallibility.they talked only about 'president' etc. And they are not scripture. Can u show me in the bible where it says that peter or any of the apostles was infallible. what is the yardstick for truth and error? How do we know that the pope is not speaking error? by comparing his teaching with scripture. Dogma of infallibility is deceit and guise to propagate falsehood. All the apostles were willing to have their teachings scrutinised why should the pope be different? Let us think for a moment.. If truly I have no ulterior motives, I would not ask you to believe that I am infallible. I would tell u to look to the scripture as a vindication of my doctrine because I know u will never find anything it contrary to my teaching. That is what the apostles did. ''the dogma of infallibility is neither true nor false but meaningless'' Garth Hallett.. "There is no convincing evidence that papal infallibility formed any part of the theological or canonical tradition of the church before the thirteenth century; the doctrine was invented in the first place by a few dissident Franciscans because it suited their convenience to invent it; eventually, but only after much initial reluctance, it was accepted by the papacy because it suited the convenience of the popes to accept it."Brian Tierney Both of them are catholics. |
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Nobody: 8:51pm On Nov 14, 2015 |
The opinion of the church fathers differ regarding the interpretation of matt 16:18. Notably Augustine of hippo and john Chrysostom."On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed. I will build my Church. For the Rock (petra) is Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built...St Augustine God did not confine any important doctrine of the christian faith to a single passage of scripture. Every valid doctrine of the christian faith has at least a tripod of scripture. That is a simple principle of hermeneutic. To allow scripture to interprete scripture. Can u find other passage that agree with ur interpretation of matt 16:18. Anywhere else peter is called a foundation?. The overwhelming evidence from other scripture point to Christ as the rock and the foundation.1 Corinth 3:11, Ephesian 2:20 |
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Nobody: 9:28pm On Nov 14, 2015 |
Ubenedictus:Let the scriptures be the judge.note that The dogma would be completely unnecessary if the pope were truly infallible. The many instances when the pope has spoken both counter-scriptural and extra scriptural teachings is the subject of another thread. |
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Jolliano: 9:25am On Nov 15, 2015 |
accountable: It was not declared as a dogma at first because the Pope was and is truly infallible and everyone knew that. But when false prophets started teaching against and denying it, it had to be OFFICIALLY DEFINED as a DOGMA. |
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Jolliano: 11:13am On Nov 15, 2015 |
accountable: The way we know that the bible is infallible is the way we know that the Pope is infallible. They are both inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Pope doesn't ask you not to scrutinize. An enormous amount of scrutiny, study and discussion that is carried out before A Pope teaches. A Person who is Catholic is a person who accepts the faith fully. One who chooses and picks doctrine or fights against an already defined doctrine is A PROTESTANT. |
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Jolliano: 11:18am On Nov 15, 2015 |
accountable: In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable (Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1). Saint Augustine as a Catholic and just like the Catholic Church teaches an AND situation. The authority to bind was given to all Apostles but firstly to Peter. So they are like Peter but Peter still maintains his primacy. You use an OR mentality. Pitching what is combined together as being opposite each other. |
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Aizenosa(m): 12:47pm On Nov 15, 2015 |
watching in 4k 3d, its quite nice here discussing without throwing blows and punches, am enjoying it. 2 Likes 1 Share |
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Nobody: 12:58pm On Nov 15, 2015 |
Jolliano: No sir, not everyone knew that. The definition even as at late as 1870 caused much discontent in the church. till date some catholics still disagree. A 1989–1992 survey of young people of the 15 to 25 age group (81% of whom were Catholics, 84% were younger than 19, and 62% were male) chiefly from the United States, but also from Austria, Canada, Ecuador, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Peru, Spain and Switzerland, found that 36.9% affirmed that, "The Pope has the authority to speak with infallibility," 36.9% (exactly the same proportion) denied it, and 26.2% said they didn't know. Source wikipedia |
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Nobody: 12:59pm On Nov 15, 2015 |
Jolliano: How do U defend an argument by simply restating it? Except you decide to accept ur tradition which is not scripture, there is no tenable prove of peter been pope or any of the apostles been infallible or claiming such. We have seen scripture after scripture that neither Paul nor any of the desciples accepted peter as pope. 1 Like 1 Share |
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Nobody: 1:02pm On Nov 15, 2015 |
Jolliano: Come to think of it, there was not catholic in the days of Jesus. In fact there was no denomination in the early church, and u r seeing a ' pope'. Isn't that absurd? 1 Like 1 Share |
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Nobody: 1:04pm On Nov 15, 2015 |
Aizenosa:Nice to know u r there. How was church? Abi u no go? |
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Nobody: 1:11pm On Nov 15, 2015 |
Jolliano: I want to believe the second sentence a mistake. U don't equate God's holy word to a mere mortal: *[[1Pe 1:24-25/KJV]]For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. The pope is flesh and like grass will wither. But the word abides forever. Don't equate or even compare them. 1 Like 1 Share |
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Nobody: 1:36pm On Nov 15, 2015 |
Jolliano: No sir, from ur argument a catholic is one who accepts the primacy of the pope and takes his word as law wiout question. He is one who blindly accepts the teaching of the pope as infallible. One who does not bother to read the bible for himself but is spoonfed by the priest with tradition. Jesus told us that when the holy spirit comes he will guide us into all truths. The holy spirit guides the individual believer. Not tradition. Any doctrine that contradicts scripture ought not be accepted on the bill of papal infallibility. 1 Like 1 Share |
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Empredboy(m): 1:44pm On Nov 15, 2015 |
accountable:list the doctrine that contradicts the Bible. |
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Empredboy(m): 1:48pm On Nov 15, 2015 |
accountable:what is the meaning of this sentence? "Christ :Peter do u love me? Peter :yes u know I love you. Jesus:keep my sheep" then who is the sheep? |
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Nobody: 1:49pm On Nov 15, 2015 |
*[[1Pe 5:1]] 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. 1 Like 1 Share |
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Empredboy(m): 2:02pm On Nov 15, 2015 |
accountable:read "1 corinthians 7:32-34, Mattew 19:12, my bro it's an advice and also a way to cut distraction from the problem caused by family. |
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Nobody: 2:43pm On Nov 15, 2015 |
Empredboy:* [[1Co 7:1-3]* Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. Did u see the 'every man'. The bishops aren't hermaphrodites. Are they? Contextually, the chapter is answering a question which the Corinthians had asked Paul in writing. But the question certainly did not pertain particularly to bishops. It concerned the whole church. It cannot be used as a ground for celibacy for an apostle or bishop. Secondly in both 1 Corinth 7 and matt 19. Bringing obligation or compulsion into the passages will be cruel and completely against the sense of the passage. Both Paul and Jesus left presented it as a choice that may be taken by 'those to whom it is given' strictly for those who are so endowed. Except u choose to be insincere u would agree that to make it a requirement for an office is cruel, to say the least. Thirdly, an overwhelming larger percentage of scripture extol the virtue of marriage. Notably. Gen 2:18. etc 1 Like 1 Share |
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Nobody: 3:05pm On Nov 15, 2015 |
Empredboy: 'An advice' uhm? Council of Elvira (c. 305) (Canon 33): It is decided that marriage be altogether prohibited to bishops, priests, and deacons, or to all clerics placed in the ministry, and that they keep away from their wives and not beget children; whoever does this, shall be deprived of the honor of the clerical office. Council of Carthage (390) (Canon 3): It is fitting that the holy bishops and priests of God as well as the Levites, i.e. those who are in the service of the divine sacraments, observe perfect continence, so that they may obtain in all simplicity what they are asking from God; what the Apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed, let us also endeavour to keep… It pleases us all that bishop, priest and deacon, guardians of purity, abstain from conjugal intercourse with their wives, so that those who serve at the altar may keep a perfect chastity. Doesn't sound like an advice to me, does it to u? |
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Jolliano: 4:29am On Nov 16, 2015 |
accountable: A lot of christians still disagree with the belief that Jesus is God. That does not make Jesus not to be God. Neither does it make the belief a lie. |
Re: If Peter Was The First Pope.......................? by Jolliano: 4:35am On Nov 16, 2015 |
accountable: Ignatius of antioch (Disciple of Saint John The Apostle) wrote this about 97AD: See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8. He is the first person to call the church CATHOLIC and CATHOLIC means universal. The Catholic Church is not a denomination. The Catholic Church does not even have a name. It was anglicans who even started calling us "ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH". |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (Reply)
Religious Children Are Meaner Than Their Secular Counterparts, Study Finds / Atheism. God Does Not Exist. / Pope Francis Bows Down And Prays Towards Mecca
(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. 124 |