Peter walks on water

The passage doesn’t indicate Peter taking his eyes off the Lord. In fact it says, the contrary, Peter calls out to Jesus, “Lord, save me!” After which Jesus rebukes him for having doubted. Both you and Yelsew seem to rely on saying, Peter “took his eyes off Jesus”, or “lost his focus”. This just isn’t here. You are adding here.

You reduce Holy Scripture to “faith alone”. Why even bother including the story of Peter here. Holy Scripture could have just said to all disciples everywhere have “faith alone”, and left the whole story out. If what you are saying is true, Jesus should have congratulated Peter, when Peter said, “Lord, save me!” He didn’t. Jesus rebuked him.

A simple literal reading of these verses, gives a lesson in Jesus teaching Peter to come to Him, take His hand, follow Him, and do what He does, walk on water, and not doubt that he can. None of the other Apostles walked on water. No one was told, "You can do this too" if you are a Christian. This was unique to Peter.

God Bless </font>[/QUOTE]To the best of recorded history no other human, disciple or not, ever walked on water. Your point is that Peter walked on water because he is God's choice to be the first Pope. For what possible reason would God need a human to walk on water to prove that he is worthy to be the first Pope? Why weren't others so "tested" to determine their worthiness? If what you say is correct, there is no need for such a test at all because it was predetermined that Peter is the pope.

You can make of it whatever you desire to make of it but the evidence is simply not supportive of your pint of view.

 

Kathryn,

'No one was told, "You can do this too if you are a Christian". This was unique to Peter.'

Ray is saying--And go on what is your real point.

Please, don't tell us that Peter was learning that he had the same power as Jesus in calming the Sea of Galilee or even the winds of nature. Neither do we find in the Acts of the Apostles/the Book of Acts chapter twenty-nine that this was his first lesson before his coronation in Rome as the founding pope of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

Kathryn,

Many things were also unique to Moses and Noah and Elijah in the O.T.
Why doesn't Catholicism adopt those individuals as the first pope and claim
that their history goes back even further than St. Ignatius. or Augustine.

Of course Carson has said that Jesus was a Catholic and even God could be
considered a catholic...........oh, and that God's purpose of creation was to
form the Catholic Church.

(quote)

Since we know that God's end in creating us was communion with
him (this is the essence of the Church: man's communion with God and
thus with one another), we can say that the Church is the purpose for
his creation.

I've tried to visualize God in heaven (pre creation) and dwelling on just how
to get the Catholic Church into power. Imagine Him thinking "Oh yeah, I can
form man and woman in my image and cause him to populate the earth and
thus he will increase in numbers and support this entity"

Now why would God need a church to do his work?

Does "Whosoever believes in me".....exclude Protestants who "believe in me"???

 

and?

 

And from that segment of scripture you get "peter is the first pope"?

You still have not addressed the issue of fear as the reason Peter's walk became a swim.

 

Do you use this passage of scripture to support your belief that Peter is the first Pope of the Roman Catholic church? Or the Catholic Church, Roman or not?

Do you hold this scripture as a "proof text" for the Church, the decendancy of the papacy from Peter to the present Pope?

If yes, that is what I picked up on and as such my comments were directed to that idea.

 

When Peter called out the words, 'Lord, save me,' he was not using the term in a Soteriological sense of the word. Many commentators of Scripture believe that the disciples really trusted, received and came to know Jesus at the Marriage of Cana. [John 2:11]

The Greek word, 'save' {sozo} has a wide meaning including: from the primary word meaning (safe), or other shades of meaning are to deliver, protect, heal, preserve, etc.

Peter's doubting was not that Christ was not the Son of God or that he did not have a saving relationship to the Master, but rather he was only trying to save his own physical life through Jesus mighty power of deliverance, which he implicitly trusted in even at this time while on the Sea of Galilee.

 

I agree that Jesus' power to save was demonstrated in a pretty dramatic manner to those in the boat and especially to Peter. That, however, does not single Peter out as being special except that Peter was willing to step out of the boat when Jesus confirmed to him that He is the Lord. None of the others asked! None of the others attempted to go to Jesus. But that does not single out Peter as a future Pope.

 

Well, the responses were about what I expected.

By itself, no, of course not. The problem is that you do not know how to synthesize the Scriptures and look at God's redemptive plan as a whole. You, like all Prots, break down the Scriptures into unrelated parts and make up doctrines from these separate and unrelated parts. Then you wonder why we Catholics cannot see your point. It is because we look at the Bible as a whole.

There are numerous symbolisms in the Scriptures, such as the word "waters" standing for the peoples of the world. I gave you a couple of scriptures to prove my point. It is not something I just made up out of my own head. And you know where I learned to do such exegesis and study?

AS A PROTESTANT!!!

You don't study the covenant, then you wonder why we insist upon running everything through the grid of the covenant to prove the Catholic Faith. You don't do types/fulfillments and then you wonder how we see the Blessed Virgin as the New Eve. You don't study the orginal Greek to come up with the proper interpretation of the words, and then you wonder why we don't accept the falsity of the so called "rapture".

In short, you read the Bible like a third grader and then get crazy on us when we try to take you deeper into the scriptures than 1 + 1 = 2.

 

Catholic Convert said:

syn·the·size
verb
1. transitive and intransitive verb combine different elements into new whole: to combine different ideas, influences, or objects into a new whole, or be combined in this way

Then Catholic Convert said:

You contradicted yourself here. First we don't know how to synthesize and then we synthesize.


And finally Catholic Convert said:

Why thank you! I submit:

 

Dear,

I thought you didn't wish to debate us "papists".

Oh well.

Yup. That's exactly what I meant. The "different elements" are things like the Lord changing the Passover to the Eucharistic Feast. The lamb of the Jews becoming the Lamb of God. And then making sure this works in the setting of the New Covenant rather than the whole.

You contradicted yourself here. First we don't know how to synthesize and then we synthesize.

I did not say that you synthesized the doctrines you make up. I said you make up doctrines from separate and unrelated parts.

The so called "rapture" is an example. Premillenialists are fond of jerking 1 Corin. 15 and 1 Thess. 4 out of context and using them as a proof-text for the "rapture". And, if you read them alone and without reference to the rest of the Bible, you can make a case for that. Heck, that's what cults have been doing for hundreds of years.

But it ignores the rest of the Scriptures, such as those verses where Jesus promises His return before the death of those who are standing there listening to Him. Or such as the verses in which He says that His return is to take place "soon" "quickly" and is "at hand".

Diane, there is a difference between having a child's faith in Christ, which is good, and being willingly ignorant of Church history, good exegetical practice, synthesis of Scripture, and proper interpretive practices.

Jesus also said. "Be wise as serpents, but gentle as doves."

 

By itself, no, of course not. The problem is that you do not know how to synthesize the Scriptures and look at God's redemptive plan as a whole. You, like all Prots, break down the Scriptures into unrelated parts and make up doctrines from these separate and unrelated parts. Then you wonder why we Catholics cannot see your point. It is because we look at the Bible as a whole.

There are numerous symbolisms in the Scriptures, such as the word "waters" standing for the peoples of the world. I gave you a couple of scriptures to prove my point. It is not something I just made up out of my own head. And you know where I learned to do such exegesis and study?

AS A PROTESTANT!!!

You don't study the covenant, then you wonder why we insist upon running everything through the grid of the covenant to prove the Catholic Faith. You don't do types/fulfillments and then you wonder how we see the Blessed Virgin as the New Eve. You don't study the orginal Greek to come up with the proper interpretation of the words, and then you wonder why we don't accept the falsity of the so called "rapture".

In short, you read the Bible like a third grader and then get crazy on us when we try to take you deeper into the scriptures than 1 + 1 = 2. </font>[/QUOTE]Stop making your foolish accusations about me.

I, like you, study the whole of scripture. I do not however forcefully piece together parts of the puzzle that do not fit together when viewed from the overall scheme and balance of God's creation.

I do not make one scriptural thought mean something it does not say. I do not rely on a single focal point for revelation of scriptural truth. God made many things which confirm the truth in scripture. I see God's hand in virtually all of His creation. I see the things that God made and the harmony in them. His Holy word is the same. There is harmony in the scriptures and when one faction or another of religious organizations interpret the scriptures according to their own organizational standards, the harmony can easily become dischord.

I left the Catholic Church! It's doctrines appeared to conflict with the scriptures the Catholic church has so faithfully preserved. Doctrines which the rest of God's creation clearly refute.

The doctrine of Perpetual virginity of Mary the mother of Jesus. The God created humanity cannot and does not adhere to this doctrine, so why should I?

The doctrine of infant baptism, especially in the light of truth concerning baptism. Baptism is by its very nature a matter of confessed faith of the one being baptised. No one submits themself to baptism without first having faith in the one who institued it. Infants cannot in their stage of life make such decisions. Yes, the infant has a willing spirit, but does not have the understanding of the reason(s) for submission. Infants cannot determine for themselves whether or not to submit. It is not the faith of the parent or guardian by which the infant is baptised. It is by the faith of the parent that the infant is saved (protected from evil).

The Rosary, Vain, rote, repetition of written and memorized prayers. If the Catholic church believed what scriptures tell us about God being our Father, a person whom we can approach as we do our physical father, and how we are to pray to the Father, the church itself would throw out the Rosary.

The Priesthood, The moment of Jesus death is marked by the renting of the Temple Veil separating the Holy of Holies from the sanctuary, thus ending the prohibition against man entering into the presence of God the Father, thus ending the intercessory function of the Priesthood. The Catholics have not recognized that truth even in the light of their professed "first Pope's" writings that call all believers a kingdom of priests.

Purgatory, Scriptures, even the apochrypha, do not support this false doctrine.

There are many others, but these are sufficient reasons for me to leave the Roman church.

 

Catholic Convert,

You said, 'The so called "rapture" is an example. Premillenialists are fond of jerking 1
Corin. 15 and 1 Thess. 4 out of context and using them as a proof-text for
the "rapture".

Ray-There is no so called rapture. Most of evangelical Protestant kinds of churches believe in Christ coming for His church. You gentlemen need to study at Dallas Seminary and get all your ducks in a row. I really wish you people were right; I would gladly change my belief system.

You said, 'Heck, that's what all the cults have been doing for hundreds of years.

Ray-We were taught in our seminary that Jehovah Witness, Christian Science, Mormons/Latter Day Saints and Seventh Day Adventists were among the cults. Personally, I believe some or even many in the Seventh Day Adventists organization are 'born of the Spirit believers,' in other words real Christians.

I think you differentiate between cults and what you call all Protestant groups meaning sects. We call our various denominations and independent churches---churches.

Ray-With each post that our friends, the Catholics, write we see clearly where you folks are spiritually speaking. When you depend of the authority of a human agent naturally your theology is going to come out discordant.

Regards,
Ray