???faith???

[§outh§tar]

You did use the word cult. It is not the same as Paul rebuking the Galatians. I asked you what it meant. Just because the article used it incorrectly does not make it right for you to do so. So don't pull a Vern and just chose to avoid the question.
Peter was called and set apart to lead the church. That has been doctrine for all of Christianity from the start. If you or some other chose to believe otherwise it won't make it untrue.
If you chose to believe they are all the same person and make Jesus the great magician/ventriloquist than it is your right to do so.
The reformation came about because of the job Catholicism was doing rewriting Christian doctrine. Martin Luther (who refused to start a church of his own because he recognized he lacked authority. It was his brother, after his death, that is responsible.) and others were more than just a little concerned about the changes. Luther posted his concerns and left. It doesn't make sense then that protestants cling to catholic doctrine - like the trinity theory - even today. That is what drove the reformation was the changing of doctrine. The trinity was one of those things that were changed. Jesus did not ever give any indication that he and his father were the same person. Every comment we attribute to Jesus indicates just the opposite. You may believe what you like. You can even pull scripture to support your claims. But on the whole the scripture does not support it.

Unfortunately, with all your talk, you are never able to substantiate with Scripture that says Peter was appointed to take the place of Jesus. Just because the Church "believed" it doesn't make it true (as we have seen over the years), especially when there is nothing in Scripture that says that.

As for the "cult" issue, I am afraid you are still greatly mistaken:

cult
a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents

There is no discrepancy in the definition and what was in my reply.

 

[b0urgeoisie]

Unfortunately, with all your talk, you are never able to substantiate with Scripture that says Peter was appointed to take the place of Jesus. Just because the Church "believed" it doesn't make it true (as we have seen over the years), especially when there is nothing in Scripture that says that.

As for the "cult" issue, I am afraid you are still greatly mistaken:

cult
a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents

There is no discrepancy in the definition and what was in my reply.

According to that definition you are a cultist. If you want to use the most broad definitions you are also an occultist. You should go back and check the train you rode in on. Because, I think you left your integrity on board. That broad inoffensive definition was not your intention.

As to Peter - just his name indicates he was the prophet and seer for Jesus' church after his death. Matthew 16:17-19 shows he was given authority over the church and its ordinances. Jesus' promised that Peter's work and command would be honored in heaven. The word Cephas is symbolic of his calling as prophet.
His future status is demonstrated by the preferential treatment he received. He was present on several important occasions. Matthew 17:1 ; 26:37-38 are a record of how Peter and the sons of Zebedee were prepared for their work after the earthly ministry of Jesus.
Peter himself asserted that the scripture could not and should not be left to private interpretation. "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Here Peter describes the calling and position of a prophet of God. One who guides and directs the people as instructed by the Holy Ghost. Peter is described the same way in Acts 1:2. The apostles, with Peter at the helm, acted in the capacity that the prophets had before.
Any scripture suggesting the prophets were no more only describes how that portion of scripture had been fulfilled. As you must know, most of the old testament is made up of "The Prophets". It was Peter who had authority to call and ordain new apostles. He did so in Acts 1:15-26. And, as I indicated before, his position at the head of the church was a matter of historical record and strong tradition.

 

[§outh§tar]

According to that definition you are a cultist. If you want to use the most broad definitions you are also an occultist. You should go back and check the train you rode in on. Because, I think you left your integrity on board. That broad inoffensive definition was not your intention.

Now you're telling me what my intentions are and aren't? Gee..

As to Peter - just his name indicates he was the prophet and seer for Jesus' church after his death. Matthew 16:17-19 shows he was given authority over the church and its ordinances. Jesus' promised that Peter's work and command would be honored in heaven. The word Cephas is symbolic of his calling as prophet.

See here: http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/peterRock.htm

See 1 Corinthians 14:11, 19 additionaly. Peter was no special prophet or even head prophet. Prophecy obviously wasn't an exclusive thing, even if Peter indeed was a prophet.

His future status is demonstrated by the preferential treatment he received. He was present on several important occasions. Matthew 17:1 ; 26:37-38 are a record of how Peter and the sons of Zebedee were prepared for their work after the earthly ministry of Jesus.

Unfortunately you are greatly mistaken concerning this issue of 'preferential treatment'. See 1 Corinthians 12:18-24, reading the entire chapter will be better to get my point.

Having read the chapter, you can see that there is no sense in saying that Peter ever got "preferential treatment", or any of the disciples for that matter.

The Bible has records of Peter being at the helm of things (which I agree with), but you behave as if all those souls affected on the Day of Pentecost were somehow lesser or 'under the guidance' of Peter, although the chapter says otherwise. The Bible does not provide records of ALL early prominent church leaders since that is not the point of the NT.

Peter himself asserted that the scripture could not and should not be left to private interpretation. "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Here Peter describes the calling and position of a prophet of God. One who guides and directs the people as instructed by the Holy Ghost.

Peter is described the same way in Acts 1:2. The apostles, with Peter at the helm, acted in the capacity that the prophets had before

.

See Matthew 28:19 for a clearer picture of the context of this verse. This verse from Matthew clearly shows that Peter was never chosen to be "at the helm", since the commandments was given to the apostles NOT the apostle.

 

[surenderer]

Soutstar,
What's your opinion on the fact that Peter was givin dreams by Jesus(pbuh) that go against the things that he taught in life? I am refering specifically to his visions of eating "forbidden" things(pork etc....) we know that Jesus(pbuh)used to cast demons into "swine" so why wouldnt he(Jesus)pbuh say that these things were no longer forbidden....wouldnt that make more sense?

 

[§outh§tar]

@ surrender

See here: http://www.christiancourier.com/notes/uncleanMeats.htm

And as a point of reference, Paul's 'opinion': Romans 14:14-23, which is basically my understanding of why Peter had a 'change of heart'.

 

[b0urgeoisie]

Now you're telling me what my intentions are and aren't? Gee..

Are you suggesting that I am wrong? Did you only mean that they are a church the same as any other? Are you a cultist? Occultist?

 

[§outh§tar]

Ok b0urgeoisie,

I have tried telling you that you are accusing me of something I did not do. There is ONLY one occurence of the word 'cult' in my entire post, and it is located in a quote.

Therefore whatever it's implications may be to you, I obviously cannot address them for you. You will have to take that up with the author of it.

 

[§outh§tar]

Ok b0urgeoisie,

I have tried telling you that you are accusing me of something I did not do. There is ONLY one occurence of the word 'cult' in my entire post, and it is located in a quote.

Therefore whatever it's implications may be to you, I obviously cannot address them for you. You will have to take that up with the author of it.

 

[b0urgeoisie]

See here: http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/peterRock.htm
See 1 Corinthians 14:11, 19

I'm not sure if you gave the correct reference. That passage does nothing to support your argument.

additionally. Peter was no special prophet or even head prophet. Prophecy obviously wasn't an exclusive thing, even if Peter indeed was a prophet.

The evidence I have shown greatly outweighs what your pathetic misguided points. The reformation was about breaking away from the catholic church. After that, some well meaning but misguided scholars have tried to uproot the history of Christianity. There is no reason to attack the truths of early church doctrine. Both the Orthodox and catholic paths were overwhelmed with paganism.

Unfortunately you are greatly mistaken concerning this issue of 'preferential treatment'. See 1 Corinthians 12:18-24, reading the entire chapter will be better to get my point.

This chapter is great. Paul clearly says that in the church there were apostles and prophets. How much more clear can it get. Thank you for making my point. As for the gifts of the spirit they are not relevant to our discussion.

Having read the chapter, you can see that there is no sense in saying that Peter ever got "preferential treatment", or any of the disciples for that matter.

You are correct. No place in that chapter is Peter mentioned as head of the church. But, that is also true of Genesis chapter four. I don't understand how you intend to make a point by giving scripture passages that do not refute what I am saying.

The Bible has records of Peter being at the helm of things (which I agree with), but you behave as if all those souls affected on the Day of Pentecost were somehow lesser or 'under the guidance' of Peter, although the chapter says otherwise. The Bible does not provide records of ALL early prominent church leaders since that is not the point of the NT.

I would never suggest that any one man or woman is greater than another. We are all part of the same family of God. You're passage on the body of Christ makes that clear. I did not say that there are not gifts of the spirit. You are trying to make this argument about something that it is not. All I suggested was that Peter was the head of the church. He acted for the church in the same manner that Moses did. He received revelation pertaining to the mission of the body of Christ and shared it with the membership. He had authority to appoint new apostles. That does not indicate that other members could not enjoy the fruits of salvation. They could pray and get answers to their prayers. They did enjoy the holy ghost and its influence in their lives. But, they could not interpret scripture to establish doctrine for the church. That was left to those in authority.

See Matthew 28:19 for a clearer picture of the context of this verse. This verse from Matthew clearly shows that Peter was never chosen to be "at the helm", since the commandments was given to the apostles NOT the apostle.

You just conceded that Peter was at the helm. He was an apostle. He was chief among them. It was Peter apart from the group that received the admonishment to "feed my sheep". Peter had help. James and John acted as assistants to Peter. If you think about it it is very symbolic. The godhead has three parts. The governing body of the apostles also had three who were called and qualified. If your paranoia over the papal claims of Catholicism needs security than I can help. Attacking Peter and his position is not the way. Who took charge after Peter was killed? Find the answer. Next Determine the year of Peter's death. (Believed to be 64 or 65) When was the last of the books of the new testament written and by whom? There the roots of apostasy only 30 years after the resurrection.
Now it has become popular to suggest that the author of the Book of the Revelation was written by some person other than John. Small bits of circumstantial "evidence" suggest several different alternate authors. But, just because it is sexy to think you know something while the rest of the world is being fooled, it does not make it true.

 

[b0urgeoisie]

OK b0urgeoisie,

I have tried telling you that you are accusing me of something I did not do. There is ONLY one occurrence of the word 'cult' in my entire post, and it is located in a quote.

Therefore whatever it's implications may be to you, I obviously cannot address them for you. You will have to take that up with the author of it.

OK I reread you article and found the quote. I was mistaken because yo did not indicate in your writing that you were quoting the article. (No quotation marks or reference)
I have only skimmed any of the articles you linked. The Christian courier does not represent unbiased biblical insight. As such it is not a credible source of doctrine.
So if you were indeed only quoting the article than I apologize for insisting that there was malice when there was none. However, any apology from me on this point is contingent on you not believing or identifying other persons groups or sects as being a cult or cultists except when it is correct to do so.
A better definition for a cult would include size. A cult is smaller than a church and has ideas that are far from mainstream. Every church on earth in its beginning was by definition a cult. But, to err and suggest that groups with millions of members, many of whom are functional in society is a cult is deceitful. To label a group as a cult is a text book example of the "poisoning the well" fallacy. It implies that they are misguided, mislead, brainwashed zombies who are a danger to themselves and society. Persons using the word maliciously who deny their malice are indeed without integrity and are in-fact by way of their fallacy attempting to brainwash and bias the populace.

 

[§outh§tar]

OK I reread you article and found the quote. I was mistaken because yo did not indicate in your writing that you were quoting the article. (No quotation marks or reference)

You are mistaken. There are dashes above and below the quote, followed by a link.

I have only skimmed any of the articles you linked. The Christian courier does not represent unbiased biblical insight. As such it is not a credible source of doctrine.

Mind providing some sort of evidence for this allegation?

So if you were indeed only quoting the article than I apologize for insisting that there was malice when there was none. However, any apology from me on this point is contingent on you not believing or identifying other persons groups or sects as being a cult or cultists except when it is correct to do so.
A better definition for a cult would include size. A cult is smaller than a church and has ideas that are far from mainstream. Every church on earth in its beginning was by definition a cult. But, to err and suggest that groups with millions of members, many of whom are functional in society is a cult is deceitful. To label a group as a cult is a text book example of the "poisoning the well" fallacy. It implies that they are misguided, mislead, brainwashed zombies who are a danger to themselves and society. Persons using the word maliciously who deny their malice are indeed without integrity and are in-fact by way of their fallacy attempting to brainwash and bias the populace.

You are listing the connotations of cult, hence saying "It implies". If that is what it implies to you, then certainly it has no business with me.

 

[§outh§tar]

I'm not sure if you gave the correct reference. That passage does nothing to support your argument.

It addresses your flawed argument that Peter is the rock of the Church. Read it properly.

The evidence I have shown greatly outweighs what your pathetic misguided points. The reformation was about breaking away from the catholic church. After that, some well meaning but misguided scholars have tried to uproot the history of Christianity. There is no reason to attack the truths of early church doctrine. Both the Orthodox and catholic paths were overwhelmed with paganism.

I had no idea my points were "pathetic" and "misguided"... It would be better if you could at least address my points to show wherein the error lies instead of bashing my statements without due.

This chapter is great. Paul clearly says that in the church there were apostles and prophets. How much more clear can it get. Thank you for making my point. As for the gifts of the spirit they are not relevant to our discussion.

The gifts of the Spirit are relevant to the discussion. Unfortunately, you evidently do not take the time to read through. Read verse 28 if you can.. Apostles are listed before prophets. There obviously wasn't one prophet or one apostle therefore claiming that Peter was the "prophet and seer" for the Church is incorrect.

You are correct. No place in that chapter is Peter mentioned as head of the church. But, that is also true of Genesis chapter four. I don't understand how you intend to make a point by giving scripture passages that do not refute what I am saying.

If you had read this in conjunction with the other passages I recommended, you would see that NO ONE (meaning Peter) was given 'preferential treatment'. See Mark 9:33-35.

I would never suggest that any one man or woman is greater than another. We are all part of the same family of God. You're passage on the body of Christ makes that clear. I did not say that there are not gifts of the spirit. You are trying to make this argument about something that it is not. All I suggested was that Peter was the head of the church. He acted for the church in the same manner that Moses did. He received revelation pertaining to the mission of the body of Christ and shared it with the membership. He had authority to appoint new apostles. That does not indicate that other members could not enjoy the fruits of salvation. They could pray and get answers to their prayers. They did enjoy the holy ghost and its influence in their lives. But, they could not interpret scripture to establish doctrine for the church. That was left to those in authority.

You just conceded that Peter was at the helm. He was an apostle. He was chief among them. It was Peter apart from the group that received the admonishment to "feed my sheep". Peter had help. James and John acted as assistants to Peter. If you think about it it is very symbolic. The godhead has three parts. The governing body of the apostles also had three who were called and qualified. If your paranoia over the papal claims of Catholicism needs security than I can help. Attacking Peter and his position is not the way. Who took charge after Peter was killed? Find the answer. Next Determine the year of Peter's death. (Believed to be 64 or 65) When was the last of the books of the new testament written and by whom? There the roots of apostasy only 30 years after the resurrection.
Now it has become popular to suggest that the author of the Book of the Revelation was written by some person other than John. Small bits of circumstantial "evidence" suggest several different alternate authors. But, just because it is sexy to think you know something while the rest of the world is being fooled, it does not make it true.

You are unfortunately mistaken in your argument.

------
It does NOT matter that many Protestant scholars (e.g., Alford, Bloomfield, Cullman, Carson, etc.) identify the “rock” as Peter. The issue is, what does the actual evidence indicate?

In addition, it is one thing to suggest that Peter was the rock (mistakenly, I believe); it is quite another to argue that papal authority necessarily results from that alleged identification. For example, Bloomfield, who is cited by Conway (p. 148) in this regard, says “this cannot be supposed to give Peter any supremacy over the rest of the apostles (p. 79; see also Mundle, pp. 384ff).
------


---
While there is obviously a word-play between “Peter” and “rock,” Mounce noted, with considerable force, that had Jesus intended to affirm clearly that Peter was to be the “foundation” of the church, he simply could have said: “And upon you I will build my church” (p. 162; emp. WJ).
---


---
Frequently the “church fathers” are appealed to as proof that the early Christians believed that Peter was the “rock” upon which the church was founded. However, as Dreyer and Weller have shown, “Only sixteen out of the eighty-four early church fathers believed that the Lord referred to Peter when He said ‘this rock’“ (p. 42).
----

---
If this conversation between Christ and Peter was intended to establish the fact that the church was to be built upon the apostle himself (with the implication of successors), it is strange indeed that Mark, who produced his Gospel record from the vantagepoint of Peter (see Eusebius, 2.15), totally omits the exchange (see Mk. 8:27-30).
------

http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/peterRock.htm

 

[b0urgeoisie]

It addresses your flawed argument that Peter is the rock of the Church. Read it properly.



I had no idea my points were "pathetic" and "misguided"... It would be better if you could at least address my points to show wherein the error lies instead of bashing my statements without due.



The gifts of the Spirit are relevant to the discussion. Unfortunately, you evidently do not take the time to read through. Read verse 28 if you can.. Apostles are listed before prophets. There obviously wasn't one prophet or one apostle therefore claiming that Peter was the "prophet and seer" for the Church is incorrect.



If you had read this in conjunction with the other passages I recommended, you would see that NO ONE (meaning Peter) was given 'preferential treatment'. See Mark 9:33-35.



You are unfortunately mistaken in your argument.

------
It does NOT matter that many Protestant scholars (e.g., Alford, Bloomfield, Cullman, Carson, etc.) identify the “rock” as Peter. The issue is, what does the actual evidence indicate?

In addition, it is one thing to suggest that Peter was the rock (mistakenly, I believe); it is quite another to argue that papal authority necessarily results from that alleged identification. For example, Bloomfield, who is cited by Conway (p. 148) in this regard, says “this cannot be supposed to give Peter any supremacy over the rest of the apostles (p. 79; see also Mundle, pp. 384ff).
------


---
While there is obviously a word-play between “Peter” and “rock,” Mounce noted, with considerable force, that had Jesus intended to affirm clearly that Peter was to be the “foundation” of the church, he simply could have said: “And upon you I will build my church” (p. 162; emp. WJ).
---


---
Frequently the “church fathers” are appealed to as proof that the early Christians believed that Peter was the “rock” upon which the church was founded. However, as Dreyer and Weller have shown, “Only sixteen out of the eighty-four early church fathers believed that the Lord referred to Peter when He said ‘this rock’“ (p. 42).
----

---
If this conversation between Christ and Peter was intended to establish the fact that the church was to be built upon the apostle himself (with the implication of successors), it is strange indeed that Mark, who produced his Gospel record from the vantagepoint of Peter (see Eusebius, 2.15), totally omits the exchange (see Mk. 8:27-30).
------

http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/peterRock.htm

You need to learn some debate skills if you are going to go around starting arguments. You cannot, as your rebuttal, just tell me to read the bible again. You want me to read your passage over again until I agree with you. But, you won't provide any commentary or guide to what your point is. You should also stop just posting bits and pieces from another web site. Try thinking for yourself. Also, when did ----- begin to = " ?
If you want to start an argument then at least make clear points and rebut with specific examples. The passages you provided were a nice read but did not have anything to do with our discussion.

 

[§outh§tar]

It shows that Peter is not the specified 'rock', as was previously identified. This is what you are claiming by naming him to be 'seer' and 'prophet'.

Whatmore, since you were unable to even address what I wrote, but resorted to calling it 'pathetic', I supposed citing other authors would sway you.

If you don't care, fine with me. Good day.