Wsa Paul Just as much an Apostle asa either peter/John?

[DHK]

Yeshua, so tell me ,which is the true church of Christ ? If Jesus only hand-picked His Apostles and told them to go out into the whole world and ,,,, Matt. 28: 18-20 along with Luke 10 ; 16 Matt. 16: 15-19, 2nd. Peter 3: 10,2nd. Peter 3: 16, John 20: 21, John 21: 15-17 , John 17: 21, Now after reading those passages and verses I hope you don't think that your going to convince me that Jesus formed His Church on one of your 16th to 21st century Protestant church inventors.

Peter wrote two small epistles, which because of their short length were put near the very end of the NT.
Paul wrote the bulk of the NT--13 epistles in all. Half of the book of Acts is devoted to his missionary journeys. More than any other person, Paul elaborates and defines the doctrine of salvation, a doctrine which you seem to be very confused on, and yet without correct comprehension it may exclude you from heaven. You see, baptism does not save.

Peter never made it to Rome and thus the RCC theology is built on a lie.
He was never the first pope, another lie that the RCC is built on.
It was the apostles as a group that were sent into the world, not the RCC.
The Great Commission was handed down to churches.
When the RCC came into existence their form of the Great Commission came in the form of bloody crusades killing both Christians and non-Christians alike. They are not representative of God's people at all, but representative of paganism.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeshua, so tell me ,which is the true church of Christ ? If Jesus only hand-picked His Apostles and told them to go out into the whole world and ,,,, Matt. 28: 18-20 along with Luke 10 ; 16 Matt. 16: 15-19, 2nd. Peter 3: 10,2nd. Peter 3: 16, John 20: 21, John 21: 15-17 , John 17: 21, Now after reading those passages and verses I hope you don't think that your going to convince me that Jesus formed His Church on one of your 16th to 21st century Protestant church inventors.

the true church of christ is NOT any building or demonination, but is is all those who have been saved and who gather in His name!

You have a really big problem here, as jesus stated that His church was coming to be right at His lifetime, and it was at pentacost, but the RCC did comew about until 300 years later!

 

[lakeside]

Yeshua, no kidding, you wrote for the umpteenth time: "the true church of christ is NOT any building or demonination, but is is all those who have been saved and who gather in His name!" Of course I understand that ,why shouldn't I for I am a member of His only Church. His one true church ,which is only formed on His apostles/successors not on some billy-bob over in the next hollow.

 

[DHK]

Yeshua, no kidding, you wrote for the umpteenth time: "the true church of christ is NOT any building or demonination, but is is all those who have been saved and who gather in His name!" Of course I understand that ,why shouldn't I for I am a member of His only Church. His one true church ,which is only formed on His apostles/successors not on some billy-bob over in the next hollow.

As he said, most consider the "true church" starting at Pentecost, which was in Jerusalem, not Rome. There was no RCC there and none of them ever made up the RCC. The beginnings of the RCC were in the fourth century and if they were consistent with history they would admit that their head was actually a pagan emperor called Constantine. But they will never admit to that.

 

[Zenas]

As he said, most consider the "true church" starting at Pentecost, which was in Jerusalem, not Rome. There was no RCC there and none of them ever made up the RCC. The beginnings of the RCC were in the fourth century and if they were consistent with history they would admit that their head was actually a pagan emperor called Constantine. But they will never admit to that.

They won't admit to it because it's not true, and I think you know it's not true. Make no mistake, the original church of Christ began in Jerusalem, not Rome. However, within some thirty years (perhaps less) Peter made it to Rome and its center of gravity has been in Rome ever since. You know that is true but you must deny it and accuse people of rewriting history; otherwise, the house of cards you refer to as a "church" comes crashing down.

 

[DHK]

They won't admit to it because it's not true, and I think you know it's not true. Make no mistake, the original church of Christ began in Jerusalem, not Rome. However, within some thirty years (perhaps less) Peter made it to Rome and its center of gravity has been in Rome ever since. You know that is true but you must deny it and accuse people of rewriting history; otherwise, the house of cards you refer to as a "church" comes crashing down.

That is easy to disprove. Christ died between 29 A.D. and 33 A.D. depending on which scholar you ask. The Jerusalem Council was in Acts 50 A.D. Peter was there, and he didn't come from Rome. There was a great persecution in Acts 8 before Saul got saved and "all the apostles" remained in Jerusalem while the rest of the Christians were scattered. Peter went to Joppa and the Lord spoke to him there. Then, Peter went to Cornelius's house in Caesarea in Acts 10, and after staying there for some days he came to Jerusalem. In chapter 12 Peter is in Jerusalem and thrown in prison by Herod. James, the brother of John had just been martyred by Herod, and Herod had intended to do the same with Peter. But Peter was delivered by an angel, miraculously.
Finally we hear of Peter in chapter 15. He is in Jerusalem ca. 50 A.D.

Now 20 years have passed.
Between 53-58 Paul was in Ephesus. From there he wrote an epistle to the believers in Rome, ca. 57-58. No mention is made of Paul either in the salutation or in the greetings at the end of the letter. The epilogue seems to indicate that the church is in the household of Aquilla and Priscilla and has nothing to do with Peter at all.

1 Peter was written ca. 65 A.D. It was written from Babylon.
1 Peter 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.
--Peter was an apostle to the Jews and Babylon was the center of the dispersed Jews of the time. Read the introduction of this epistle.

Within a couple of years he wrote his second epistle: (ca.67-68 A.D.)
He writes to them that he expects to die.
2 Peter 1:15 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.
--This letter is also written from Babylon.

Within one year (69 A.D.) Peter died. He never lived to see the destruction of Jerusalem. If he made it to Rome it was between 68 and 69 A.D. just in time to die a martyr's death, and that is all.

I am not the one that rewrites history. Peter was never in Rome except for a few months--there to die, like Paul, at the behest of a cruel dictator. No doubt he knew of it, like Paul:

2 Timothy 4:6 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.
2 Timothy 4:16 At my first defence no one took my part, but all forsook me: may it not be laid to their account. ASV

But it was Peter that said:
2 Peter 1:15 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.
--He was reminding them to remember these things after his death for he wouldn't be with them very much longer. His death was imminent.

 

[McCree79]

They won't admit to it because it's not true, and I think you know it's not true. Make no mistake, the original church of Christ began in Jerusalem, not Rome. However, within some thirty years (perhaps less) Peter made it to Rome and its center of gravity has been in Rome ever since. You know that is true but you must deny it and accuse people of rewriting history; otherwise, the house of cards you refer to as a "church" comes crashing down.

The Rome was never the center until Constantine made it the center. The emperor made the RCC. He brought the churches together by threat of the Roman spear. All for the political gain and stability of his empire. When the bishop of Rome tried to claim "first place" among all bishops, he was meet with resistance. Other bishops pushed back, told him to mind his own diocese. The bishops of Rome forged documents in attempt to rewrite history and solidify their position as the leader of the church.

The RCC was built upon Constantine, not Peter. You have no proof of Peter as Pope, but their is tons of proof Constantine centralized and ran the church.

 

[lakeside]

In Acts 15, Pope Peter declares that Christians are not bound to be circumcised.
That declaration was for the 'whole church', and is still in effect today. Though this was before the Church was centered in Rome, is is very clear, unless you really don't understand Sacred Scripture,[ which is the case in Protestantism, all have conflicting interpretations ] that Peter is the main Apostle who made the binding decision for the Church. And if you go on to read the rest of Act's 15, you will see that he was guided by the Holy Spirit. The rest of the Apostles and elders accepted his decision.

 

[PreachTony]

In Acts 15, Pope Peter declares that Christians are not bound to be circumcised.
That declaration was for the 'whole church', and is still in effect today. Though this was before the Church was centered in Rome, is is very clear, unless you really don't understand Sacred Scripture,[ which is the case in Protestantism, all have conflicting interpretations ] that Peter is the main Apostle who made the binding decision for the Church. And if you go on to read the rest of Act's 15, you will see that he was guided by the Holy Spirit. The rest of the Apostles and elders accepted his decision.

1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
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.
6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:
31 Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.
32 And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.
33 And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the apostles.
34 Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.
35 Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.
36 And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do.
37 And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.
38 But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.
39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;
40 And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.
41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.

Peter speaks in verse 7, after there had been a long debate, and much arguing. It is the only time he speaks in this chapter. Afterwards everyone turns to Paul. At no point in the scripture is Peter referred to as the Pope. Peter was a fallible sinful man, just like us. He needed a savior just as much as we do. Jesus Christ did not found His church upon Peter. He founded His church on no mortal man, as we are all sinful and all fall short of His glory. The foundation of the church is Peter's statement "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God," not Peter himself. The sooner you grab hold of that, and forget about Peter somehow being better than the others, the sooner you'll be able to engage in meaningful Christian debate and discussion.

 

[lakeside]

PreachTony, Peter was a sinful man, Christ's Church is for sinners , the Church makes sinners into saints. Catholics merely say that Peter's successor has traditionally been located in Rome. I have explained some of the likely reasons of the location, but others have pointed out that the location may not have mattered much. Again, Peter was the leader of the Apostles [ as Bible tells us ], and in that capacity helped preserve the unity of the Church in all matters of faith and morals, then where is his successor now if not the Bishop of Rome? And if there is no successor, then what changed?

Obviously, not having a central leader among the priesthood has lead to widespread schism and contradictory doctrines outside the Catholic Church, so such a construction is demonstrably anti-unity--and thus no work of Christ. If you can demonstrate how unity in communion and in truth has somehow been preserved outside of the successor of Peter, I'd be very interested.

 

[PreachTony]

PreachTony, Peter was a sinful man, Christ's Church is for sinners , the Church makes sinners into saints. Catholics merely say that Peter's successor has traditionally been located in Rome. I have explained some of the likely reasons of the location, but others have pointed out that the location may not have mattered much. Again, Peter was the leader of the Apostles [ as Bible tells us ], and in that capacity helped preserve the unity of the Church in all matters of faith and morals, then where is his successor now if not the Bishop of Rome? And if there is no successor, then what changed?

Obviously, not having a central leader among the priesthood has lead to widespread schism and contradictory doctrines outside the Catholic Church, so such a construction is demonstrably anti-unity--and thus no work of Christ. If you can demonstrate how unity in communion and in truth has somehow been preserved outside of the successor of Peter, I'd be very interested.

That's a very underhanded way of saying that no church but the catholic church is a work of Christ. If our churches are not the work of Christ, then that must make us anathema, right?

 

[lakeside]

PreachTony, the question that you should be asking yourself, being that you are a Sola Scriptura Alone, is where in Sacred Scripture did our Lord/ God say to man-kind that in the way-off future [ like 1500 years ] to build many thousands of conflicting churches different than mine with different Doctrinal Teachings .
All I can find is where God left us with just one church formed on His Apostles and He wants " Unity " not disunity in different main Doctrine as we find in Protestantism or any other Christian- like church.

 

[PreachTony]

PreachTony, the question that you should be asking yourself, being that you are a Sola Scriptura Alone, is where in Sacred Scripture did our Lord/ God say to man-kind that in the way-off future [ like 1500 years ] to build many thousands of conflicting churches different than mine with different Doctrinal Teachings .
All I can find is where God left us with just one church formed on His Apostles and He wants " Unity " not disunity in different main Doctrine as we find in Protestantism or any other Christian- like church.

That would be great...if Jesus had established a physical church on Earth. When Jesus told Peter that "on this rock I establish my church," it's easy to see the rock was the statement of faith Peter made, not Peter himself. You can't just join with the church and instantly be one of His. You have to be able to make the statement, with full conviction, belief, and knowledge, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

If Jesus had meant for their to be only one church, then you would think the disciples would've called out Paul for all his church planting on his missionary journeys. But we have no record that they did. And simple Bible study will show you that within just a few years of being established, churches like Corinth were already back to fighting the flesh. Corinth didn't do things like Ephesus. Ephesus didn't do things like Phillipi. Phillipi didn't do things like Thyatira. But they were all founded on the same rock, that Jesus Christ was, is, and will always be the Son of the Living God.

If it was God's intent for the Catholic Church to be the one and only church, then why did He allow Paul to plant so many churches?

 

[lakeside]

PreachTony, are you trying to tell me that Jesus taught different Doctrinal Teachings to each of His apostles ?

 

[DHK]

In Acts 15, Pope Peter declares that Christians are not bound to be circumcised.
That declaration was for the 'whole church', and is still in effect today.

It was in effect for "all the churches," or for all of Christianity. "The whole church" never existed.

Though this was before the Church was centered in Rome, is is very clear, unless you really don't understand Sacred Scripture,[ which is the case in Protestantism, all have conflicting interpretations ] that Peter is the main Apostle who made the binding decision for the Church. And if you go on to read the rest of Act's 15, you will see that he was guided by the Holy Spirit. The rest of the Apostles and elders accepted his decision.

You are wrong, and seem to be ignorant of Acts 15 or haven't even read it. Peter (as did Paul) simply gave a testimony of his experiences. The apostles came together as one group. The James declared, as pastor of the church It is my judgment...
It wasn't Peter's decision at all. He had little to do with it.
It was James that made the actual decision, and James made the recommendation not to put any further burden on the Gentile believers, not Peter!
Read your Bible!

Acts 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

Acts 15:19 "Therefore my judgment is that we don't trouble those from among the Gentiles who turn to God, WEB
--The word "sentence" simply means "judgment."
James made the Judgment, the decision, the right call so to speak, not Peter.

 

[lakeside]

DHK, nice try, but way off.. Jesus wants unity in Doctrinal Teaching, just as the Bible tells us.

 

[DHK]

DHK, nice try, but way off.. Jesus wants unity in Doctrinal Teaching, just as the Bible tells us.

It never came through the RCC.
He taught doctrinal unity among his disciples. He taught a general unity of love among all believers. The Bible speaks of progressive revelation.
Paul spoke more of doctrine than Jesus did. Paul never spoke of unity among all the churches. He spoke of unity within each church. He never spoke of having the churches of Ephesus and Philippi, Colosse, to unite together in any ecumenical meeting even though their distances to each other were not that far away. Each had their own problems. They were different and unique from each other.
When Jesus wrote to the seven churches in the Book of Revelation toward the end of the first century he never advocated a united doctrine. In fact he scolded them (if necessary) for not keeping to the doctrine that they had. To the church at Ephesus he told them "I have somewhat against thee because thou hast lost thy first love," that is the love for Christ that they had when the first trusted him. Then he told them to Repent or their candlestick would be taken from them.
Eventually it was. A mosque was erected on the site where the church was. And then some time after that then entire place was completely desolate with no human occupant to be seen--an uninhabitable and desolate wilderness with the sea lapping at its shores--not a person to be seen anywhere. God's judgment had come true.
The unity of doctrine was directed at individual churches, not collectively at all churches.