The Catholic Church can't be THE Church because...

[mrtumnus]

The point is moot. Christ used petra/petros in Mat.16:18. There was no mention of Cephas in that text. One must go by what the text says. It was a play on words. But it was also a theological truth that Christ was teaching. Christ was the rock. It was on Christ alone that he would build his church, and on none other. If your church is built on Peter it is a pagan church.
There are quite a few Protestant Bible scholars who do not agree with you that this is a play on words, but that Christ really meant Peter is the rock.

In the Greek he is not called a rock in comparison to the rock that Jesus refers to himself. He is not petra.

But it does. Peter would be a shepherd, as Christ is the Chief Shepherd.
Peter would be a stone of the building, as Christ is the chief cornerstone.

Because he would be one of the building blocks of the church. But he would not be that massive cornerstone as the word petra implies.
Jesus changed many of the apostles names.

Again, this is no contradiction between Jesus being the head of the church and having a visible head on earth. Think in terms of, who is the head of a Christian home? Christ, or the husband? Why does a home with two adults need a visible 'head' and not the church? Why does a Christian home need a 'head' named by Christ at all? The home is simply a relfection of the church you know -- the domestic church.

Christ gives Peter the name "Cephas" at their first meeting in John 1:42. The Aramaic is preserved in the Greek text. He changed his name to "Rock". Again, consider the significance when God changes someone's name in Scripture. Abraham. Israel. What is the significance of the change from Simon to Cephas?

Please provide the evidence were Jesus changed many of the apostles names? He gave James and John a nickname they shared -- Sons of Thunder. Hardly a new name and you do not see people referring to them in this way in Scripture. I am unaware of Jesus changing the name of any apostle other than Peter.

 

[mrtumnus]

One of the top evangelical New Testament scholars in the world, R.T. France says this in his commentary on Matthew, "Verses 17 through 19 are addressed to Peter and have been regarded by some as a late addition to support an early claim to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Whether or not they give any such support, there is no textual evidence for their addition to the gospel after its original composition, and the strongly Semitic or Jewish character of the language throughout these verses point to a relatively early origin in a Palestinian environment." He goes on to talk about how Peter is referenced to the Rock. France says, "It describes not so much Peter's character, that is the Rock. He did not prove to be rock-like in terms of stability or reliability but rather the name Rock or Peter points to his function as the foundation stone of Jesus' Church." “The term Peter, Rock, points to Simon and not his character because he could be very unstable, but rather his official function as the foundation stone of Jesus' Church. The word-play is unmistakable.

One of the greatest Protestant Biblical scholars of the century supports this -- W. F. Albright, in his Anchor Bible Commentary on Matthew. "Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter." "To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter," Albright says, "among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre- eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles."

Albright goes on in his commentary to speak about the keys of the kingdom that Jesus entrusted to Peter. Here's what he says, "Isaiah 22, verse 15, undoubtedly lies behind this saying of Jesus. The keys are the symbol of authority and Father Roland DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is described as having the same authority."

Albright says, "In commenting upon Matthew 16 and Jesus giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Isaiah 22:15 and following undoubtedly lies behind this saying."


He goes on to say some other things. "It is of considerable importance," Albright says, "that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are discussed, the symbol of the keys is absent, since the saying applies in these instances to a wider circle. The role of Peter as steward of the kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority as was the case of the Old Testament chamberlain who held the keys."

One of the greatest reformed Biblical scholars of this century, Herman Liderboss, a European scholar, in his Matthew commentary says "The slight difference between these two words, petra and petros, has no special importance. The most likely explanation for the change from petros, Peter, masculine, to petra is that petra was the normal word for rock, because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man's name; however, Simon was not called Petra but Petros. There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that He was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words "on this rock," petra, indeed, refer to Peter. Because of the revelation he had received and the confession it had motivated in him, Peter was appointed by Jesus to lay the foundation of the future Church."

One of the top Evangelical, non-Catholic scholars in America, Professor Donald Carson of the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in his book, God With Us, Themes from Matthew says, "Jesus was simply using a pun to say that Peter is the rock on which Jesus would build His Church

This has led an Evangelical Protestant German scholar, Gerhardt Meier, who wrote a famous book that conservative Protestants frequently refer to, "The End of the Historical Critical Method". In his article, "The Church and the Gospel of Matthew," Gerhardt Meier says on pages 58 through 60, "Nowadays, a broad consensus has emerged which, in accordance with the words of the text applies the promise to Peter as a person."
"On this point liberal and conservative theologians agree," and he names several Protestant theologians from the liberal to the conservative side. "Matthew 16:18 ought not to be interpreted as a local church. The church in Matthew 16:18 is the universal entity, namely the people of God. There is an increasing consensus now that this verse concerning the power of the keys is talking about the authority to teach and to discipline, including even to absolve sins."

Another Lutheran professor, a professor of scripture and theology at Concordia Seminary in Hong Kong, Torg Forberg wrote an article entitled, "Peter, High Priest of the New Covenant." Forberg insists that Jesus is the ultimate High Priest in the New Testament, but he says, "Peter is presented as some kind of successor to the High Priest in tradition used by the final redactorate, Matthew 16:13-19. Peter stands out as a kind of chief Rabbi who binds and looses in the sense of declaring something to be forbidden or permitted. Peter is looked upon as a counterpart to the High Priest. He is the highest representative for the people of God."

The Interpreter's Bible, "The keys of the kingdom would be permitted to the chief steward in the royal household and with them goes plenary authority, unlimited power, total. Post- apostolic Christianity is now beginning to ascribe to the Apostles the prerogatives of Jesus."

English Protestant scholar, J.N.D. Kelly in his book, Oxford Dictionary of the Popes. He says, "The Papacy is the oldest of all Western institutions with an unbroken existence of almost 2000 years."

Source -- Scott Hahn

 

[DHK]

My fact as stated is that Jesus appeared to Peter alone before he appeared to the other apostles as confirmed by Paul.

This is absolute error. You cannot prove it through Scripture. Christ appeared to Mary Magdelene first. Prove to me that Christ appeared to Peter first. Demonstrate it through Scripture or stop telling lies on the board. Quit disseminating false information without proof.

Peter alone is told he had come to understand the divinity of Christ by a special revelation from the Father.

Peter alone? I don't thinks so. How did Paul come to this coinclusion? He also received divine revelation. So did Cornelius. Many of the OT saints also received divine revelation concerning God. The three Hebrew children were with Christ in the fire. All three: Peter, James and John saw Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration with Elijah and Moses. That was divine revelation. Thomas, after seeing hm resurrected, fell down and cried out: "My Lord and my God." Why?
Just because Jesus said to Peter: "My Father hath revealed this unto you," does not mean that the Father had not revealed it to others. Your logic is wrong.

Peter alone receives the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

No he wasn't

Peter alone receives a new name – Rock, upon which Jesus says he will build his church.

His name means more like "pebble." And Jesus built his church upon Peter's testimony that testified as Christ being the Messiah. It was Christ that was the Rock.

Peter alone is told by Jesus to tend and feed his sheep. This is after Jesus has asked him if he loves him more than he does the disciples.

Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit tells all of the Ephesian elders to tend to the sheep. Christ is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Both have the same authority. Look at Acts 20:28.

When the tax collector comes for Jesus’ taxes, he goes to Peter, not Jesus. Jesus tells Peter where to find a coin (mouth of a fish) and uses this single coin to pay the taxes of both Peter and Jesus.

Peter is submissive to the decision of James in Acts 15. It was the decision of James, who was the pastor of the church of Jerusalem that made the decision. Peter played a relative minor role.
Peter was rebuked by Paul.

Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
---Aaaah, sinful Peter. Paul had to rebuke him. He was a disrupting Paul's ministry, even teaching by example that which was contrary to the Worf of God. No other apostle is given such a rebuke.

Peter, no one else, many times speaks on behalf of the apostles

No other apostle is rebuiked as often as Peter.
No other apostle denies Christ three times, or even denies Christ at all.

At the least supper, Jesus prays only for Peter individually, and is told that when he has turned back (from denying Christ) he is to strengthen his brothers.

No other apostle needs such special prayer; for they are all strong enough that they will not deny Christ. Only Peter committed that sin.

Peter alone is who Jesus holds accountable when he, James and John are sleeping in the garden.

Wrong. Jesus uses the plural. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. He was addressing all three of them.

In Luke’s Gospel none of the others believe the women that Jesus is risen. Peter alone goes to the tomb to see.

Wrong again, both Peter and John went to the tomb. Get your facts straight.

In John’s Gospel both Peter and John run to the tomb. John outruns Peter, but waits for Peter to allow him to enter the tomb first.

And then John looked in; It was John that understood what had happened, not Peter.

When the apostles see Jesus from the shore after the resurrection, only Jesus leaves the boat to run to the shore to meet him.

I think you mean Peter. Jesus wasn't in the boat.

Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas.

I won't go into the rest of your statements for they are frivilous. Obviously you have not studied the book of Acts. Luke is the author. He divides the book of Acts into two sections:
A. Chapters 1-12 center around the ministry of Peter.
B. Chapters 13-28 center around the ministry of Paul.

To say that Peter is first in anything in Acts is just silly. Luke concentrates the first half of his book around the ministry of Peter. He could have chosen John but he didn't. The Holy Spirit led him to use Peter's ministry instead, in spite of his many short comings.

Peter is often isolated from the rest of the apostles in scripture, unlike anyone else. Why is he specifically mentioned instead of just one of the apostles? Where else do you see another apostle mentioned like this? Examples:

Read carefully. Paul is "isolated" so to speak, even more than Peter.
Paul says that “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.[/quote]
A misleading post. Why not quote the rest of the passage as well?
1 Corinthians 15:6-7 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
--500 brethren, then James (another single individual), then of the apostles as a group once again.

Please pick another apostle and compile a similar list or where they are isolated in a similar fashion.

The apostle Paul is given far more prominence.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I would be interested in some supporting documentation on your side note. As many Orthodox as I converse with it has never been expressed. My OO friend says that what few Orthodox are willing to admit is that their own disunity allowed them to be conquered by the Muslims.

I’m having trouble understanding what this “disunity” could be, other than maybe the other Patriarchates didn’t ban together to fight. But we are talking about Persia here. The second largest army second to Rome in the world and quite frankly caught the Eastern half of Europe off guard, since all the Patriarchates other than Rome were already had Islam at their backdoor. This wasn’t some slouch of an army we’re talking about either, these guys were expert in warfare.

As far as my side note; Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandra all of which are under Moslem rule and have been since the Crusades are thriving just fine. But It’s not cheap…money wise and land wise for being Christian…

And their view regarding the 4 Patriarchates is quite different as well -- they have the direct lineage of Alexandria and Antioch -- Jerusalem and Constantinople were both added afterwards plus replacements for the original 2 out of 3, which are now the OO church.

By the Fourth Ecumenical Council in 451 AD Cannon 28 confirmed Canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council of 381, by creating the Pentarchy, which settled the order of precedence of rank among the 5 Patriarchates.

In XC
-

 

[mrtumnus]

Well, I think you are correct regarding one of those patriarchates--Alexandria. It is true that the original succession is basically found in the Coptic Church, while the Byzantine emperor set up a pro-Chalcedonian replacement. If I'm not mistaken, however, the reverse was the case in Antioch--the original succession more or less stayed in the Chalcedonian camp while there was an alternate Jacobite patriarchate set up later on in the 6th century. (But I'd be happy to see documentation to the contrary if I'm wrong)

I will never claim to be an expert on this stuff. It's enough to make ones head swim.

All I know is what I hear from the OO side. Here's what wiki says about Chalcedon and the split. From this I would conclude that the original patriarchs and succession went the way of the OO, and they would concur I believe. Also, since Chaledon was the council which officially established Constantinople and Jerusalem as patriarchs and they did not accept the council, they would view that 2 out of 3 patriarchs went their direction.

In the years following Chalcedon the patriarchs of Constantinople remained in communion with the non-Chalcedonian patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem,[citation needed] while Rome remained out of communion with them, and in unstable communion with Constantinople. It was not until 518 that the new Byzantine Emperor, Justin I (who accepted Chalcedon), demanded that the Church in the Roman Empire accept the Council's decisions. [3] Justin ordered the replacement of all non-Chalcedonian bishops, including the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

And this is an excuse to have a Crusade against the Albigenses, a God-fearing people, believers in the Lord, people who did nothing but mind their own business in serving God (rather than the Pope) as Baptists do today. The Crusades were to exterminate the Albigenses as well. Kind people they were back then weren't they? Monsters, yes! Christians, NO!

I just recently saw a discovery channel thing on these guys. From their sources these Albigenses were immoral their practitioners taught that fornication was ok. On the other hand I haven't studied this sect but they may not be a godly as one might suppose.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What must a person do to receive Grace from the Roman Catholic Church?


To receive Grace from the Roman Catholic Church, you first need to be a memeber, and particpate in the sacraments. The Roman Catholic Church dispenses Grace through it's sacraments. So to get it, one must perform faith plus works BEFORE they can receive the Grace it dispenses. Not only that, they must do so in a continuing basis. You can twist your words all you want, it does not change the fact one must do works to receive Grace from the Roman Catholic Church.

The catholics would talk about two different types of grace here. Grace that leads to salvation which then is resultant in faith and works. And grace distributed through the sacraments (an extra grace, so to speak, to help you on your life in christ)

 

[Thinkingstuff]

are you a Roman Catholic?
I believe you are..


That maybe true, but what you fail to realize, the LXX version Paul used may not be the ones we have today. Each LXX version we have are different in some way. Some have books others do not.

Do you believe all the books in the LXX are Scripture? If so which LXX?

The Roman Catholic Church did not officially declare what was Scripture until the Council of Trent. This is just laughable.
They did not know what was Scripture for 1500 years. I guess the Holy Spirit was doing a poor job guiding the "ONE TRUE CHURCH".
And even then they still had it wrong. lol.

Are you asking if I'm Roman Catholic? Well, I was raised Catholic and left the Catholic church when I was 15. And been going to baptist churches ever since. On the other hand I'm not ignorant of history and will call things as I see them. If it matches with the RCC. So be it. I try not to force my opinions to color history. History is history. I think for instance that the Romans went overboard when they attempted to keep the scriptures from the people. I believe the reformation was necissary. Keep in mind my family remained catholic and because I left the church I became the families red headed step child. You can't imagine the suffering I had to go through. The arguments, my mother not speaking to me for years. My father telling me how messed up all protestants are. The accusations that I left because I wanted to sin. On and on. And the thing is they weren't even seriously practicing and were sinning more than I! Not being invited to my brothers wedding. etc... fortuantely my father turned his life around and serves Jesus though he hasn't left Catholic church. I won't demand that he does either. We reconciled. My mother accepts that I disagree with her on several things. I've paid my dues as a protestant. But its Jesus that I'm interested in and the truth. Truth is truth and I won't make the truth agree with me just because I want it to.

 

[mrtumnus]

This is absolute error. You cannot prove it through Scripture. Christ appeared to Mary Magdelene first. Prove to me that Christ appeared to Peter first. Demonstrate it through Scripture or stop telling lies on the board. Quit disseminating false information without proof.

1 Corinthians 15:3-6 *For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4*that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5*and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6*After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

Paul states that Christ appeared to Peter before he appeared to the entire group. Why would you conclude is the reason for this? Once again, Peter is separated from the others in the view of Christ.

 

[mrtumnus]

I said:
Quote:
Peter alone is told he had come to understand the divinity of Christ by a special revelation from the Father.

You said:

Peter alone? I don't thinks so. How did Paul come to this coinclusion? He also received divine revelation. So did Cornelius. Many of the OT saints also received divine revelation concerning God. The three Hebrew children were with Christ in the fire. All three: Peter, James and John saw Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration with Elijah and Moses. That was divine revelation. Thomas, after seeing hm resurrected, fell down and cried out: "My Lord and my God." Why?
Just because Jesus said to Peter: "My Father hath revealed this unto you," does not mean that the Father had not revealed it to others. Your logic is wrong.

Peter is the first to recognize and state the divinity of Christ and this is noted in Matthew 16 by Jesus as being revealed to him by the Father.

Paul's revelation was not from the Father, it was from the Son. I will not argue that many receive divine revelation, and do so today. That does not change however, that Peter was the first to recognize and state the divinity of Christ, and it was specifically stated that this had been revealed to him by the Father.

Matthew 16:13-17 13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" 14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

 

[mrtumnus]

I said:
Peter alone is who Jesus holds accountable when he, James and John are sleeping in the garden.

You said:

Wrong. Jesus uses the plural. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. He was addressing all three of them.

Matthew 26:40 Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. "Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?" he asked Peter.

 

[mrtumnus]

I said:
Peter alone receives the keys to the kingdom of heaven.


You said:

No he wasn't

Only mention of the keys of the kingdom of heaven being given to anybody......


16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

 

[mrtumnus]

I said:
Peter alone receives a new name – Rock, upon which Jesus says he will build his church.

You said:

His name means more like "pebble." And Jesus built his church upon Peter's testimony that testified as Christ being the Messiah. It was Christ that was the Rock.

John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter).


Cephas does not mean 'pebble' or 'little rock'.

 

[mrtumnus]

I said:

Peter alone is told by Jesus to tend and feed his sheep. This is after Jesus has asked him if he loves him more than he does the disciples.


You said:
Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit tells all of the Ephesian elders to tend to the sheep. Christ is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Both have the same authority. Look at Acts 20:28.

All pastors do become shepherds of their individual flock. This does not change the fact that Jesus gave Peter alone the commission to feed his sheep, tend his sheep, in the presence of the other apostles and separate from them.

John 21:15-17

 

[annsni]

This is not accurate. There is all sorts of evidence showing the use of the apocrypha with in church use back to 90 AD. Actual evidence. The statements made here are to push an agenda that history does not bare out.

I wish I had more time to answer but we're in the throws of preparing for a large graduation party on Saturday so my time on the computer is limited to late nights or sporadic during the day while I get a chance for a cup of water and to cool off in the AC. So the best I can do is post links to help out. I already posted links. It is not pushing an agenda but pushing the truth and history DOES bare it out. If you could show me proof that the Apocrypha was in the LXX before the 4th century, I'd like to see it.

http://www.truthnet.org/Bible-Origins/6_The_Apocrypha_The_Septugint/index.htm

http://theologiannotepad.blogspot.com/2007/11/apocrypha.html

 

[mrtumnus]

Peter is submissive to the decision of James in Acts 15. It was the decision of James, who was the pastor of the church of Jerusalem that made the decision. Peter played a relative minor role.
Peter was rebuked by Paul.

Peter did not 'submit' to the decision of James. Peter spoke first at the council, even though it was known that the church of Jerusalem was established by James. Then they listened to Paul and Barnabas, and then James spoke with a decision. Nothing James said contradicted that said by Peter.

Paul did rebuke Peter because his behavior did not coincide with his teaching. This is the difference between scandal and heresy. Peter's was creating scandal. No one has ever implied that Peter was a perfect person in terms of his own behavior. Quite the contrary.


You are correct, Peter is rebuked more, corrected more, and receives more focus throughout. He alone has his name changed by Christ, to be Cephas -- Rock. Why is this? I will defer to the Protestant scholars here regarding the importance of Peter's behavior.

"It describes not so much Peter's character, that is the Rock. He did not prove to be rock-like in terms of stability or reliability but rather the name Rock or Peter points to his function as the foundation stone of Jesus' Church." R.T France


"Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter." "To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter," Albright says, "among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre- eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles." W.F. Albright

Example -- you said only Peter betrayed Christ. Since St. John is the only apostle recorded who stood with Christ at the foot of the cross, I would say this is not correct. It doesn't say everyone else BUT Peter was there. However, Peter's is the only betrayal that is documented -- why?

 

[mrtumnus]

I said:
In Luke’s Gospel none of the others believe the women that Jesus is risen. Peter alone goes to the tomb to see.

You said:

Wrong again, both Peter and John went to the tomb. Get your facts straight.

My facts are quite straight. John is not mentioned in Luke's Gospel.

Luke 24:9-12
9 When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. 10 It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. 11 But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense. 12 Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.


Although I will concede that it was indeed Peter in the boat. Typo on my part.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

1 Corinthians 15:3-6 *For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4*that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5*and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6*After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

Paul states that Christ appeared to Peter before he appeared to the entire group. Why would you conclude is the reason for this? Once again, Peter is separated from the others in the view of Christ.

Ah...but he doesn't affirm that Christ appeared to Peter before appearing to Mary Magdeline. In fact Paul doesn't mention her at all in the 'creed' of 1 Corinthians 15, probably because in that day women were not regarded as valid witnesses. So in the creedal form Paul received (presumably from Peter and James probably within 5 years of the crucifixion) and which he had delievered to the Corinthians, the appearances to the male apostles were singled out, not of the female associates. Interestingly, it's the reporting of the women discovering the Tomb (and Christ appearing to Mary) that lends credibility to the historicity of the Resurrection accounts--having women discover the tomb is not something people in that time would make up.

Not that this makes a whole lot of difference in the discussion--I just find it historically interesting.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Only mention of the keys of the kingdom of heaven being given to anybody......


16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

However, given the fact that Christ gives the authority to "bind and loose" to all of the apostles in Matthew 18, wouldn't the "keys" be implied there as well?

 

[grace56]

I was reading Revelations and came across this verse, what does this mean? Does this mean works matter?

grace56


Revelation 14:13 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.


13 Then I heard a voice from heaven saying to me,[a] “Write: ‘Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.’”
“Yes,” says the Spirit, “that they may rest from their labors, and their works follow them.”