Catholic Heresy (for the record)
- Thread starter RoboOp
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Yes you are right. Peter was not the leader of the church of Christ. He was a humble Apostle who had been taught by Jesus that to seek pre-eminence was a gross sin. He counted others better than himself
I really do not see what Peter has to do even with the primitive Roman church. History demonstrates that he was only in Rome a short while, under arrest and waiting to be executed. He had been in Babylon and elsewhere as, like a true Apostle, he continued his roving commission. If he had remained in Rome he would have disobeyed Christ.
In 6.2 it was THE TWELVE who summoned 'the body of the disciples. See how Luke is avoiding glorifying Peter?
And suddenly Stephen has taken over. Is he now the leader of the Apostles? OF COURSE NOT His taking the lead does not make him the leader.
Then PHILIP takes over. Has he become leader? Of course not.
I really do not see what Peter has to do even with the primitive Roman church. History demonstrates that he was only in Rome a short while, under arrest and waiting to be executed. He had been in Babylon and elsewhere as, like a true Apostle, he continued his roving commission. If he had remained in Rome he would have disobeyed Christ.
- typical misunderstanding. He suggested it to the Apostles and they all agreed. THEY put forward, THEY prayed. THEY cast lots. It was a joint effort.
but the other eleven were proclaiming the truth in tongues, someone had to take the lead. Peter didn't convert anyone, it was God by His Holy Spirit Who did it. Note How God wrote His word so as to diminish Peter's part, 'Peter standing with the eleven lifted up his voice and addressed them'. The message was from the eleven as well.
They devoted themselves to the APOSTLES teaching. Many wonders and signs were wrought through the APOSTLES. It was a joint effort.
- Acts 3: Peter heals a lame man and again addresses the crowds.
- Notice how the Roman Catholic church omits JOHN. Peter and John acted TOGETHER. Peter was simply the best orator, not the leader.
- Acts 4: Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, addresses the Jewish rulers, priests, and scribes.
- Typical Roman Catholic exaltation of an individual. Who were speaking to the people? THEY were (4.1). Both Peter and John took part. And they were BOTH subsequently arrested. And before the tribunal 'they saw the boldness of PETER AND JOHN.' In verse 19 both Peter AND JOHN answered them. In verse 33 'with great power THE APOSTLES gave their testimony to the resurrection of Jesus Christ.' Only the Roman Catholics put the emphasis on Peter because of their false ideas about his connection with Rome.
- Acts 5: Peter speaks the death sentence upon Ananias and Sapphira.
- Note that Ananias laid his gift at 'the APOSTLES' feet. Peter often acted as spokesman but he was NOT the leader. Peter did NOT speak the death sentence on Ananias. He simply rebuked him for hat he had done. It was GOD Who passed the death sentence (on the other hand the Roman Catholics do seem to see Peter as God)
In 6.2 it was THE TWELVE who summoned 'the body of the disciples. See how Luke is avoiding glorifying Peter?
And suddenly Stephen has taken over. Is he now the leader of the Apostles? OF COURSE NOT His taking the lead does not make him the leader.
Then PHILIP takes over. Has he become leader? Of course not.
- When THE APOSTLES heard what had happened THEY sent Peter and JOHN. The Apostles were in joint charge, not Peter. Luke is stressing the fact. Peter replied to Simon because Simon spoke to him, not because he was 'the leader'
- More to follow.
Hey Matt, I wanted to start by thanking you for the kind words the other day, and I’ve been keeping up with the conversation since. This whole “omitted words” argument you’ve been presenting could just as easily be pointed right back at you. We can also add pope, rosary, purgatory, penance, Baby baptisms, Eucharist, mass, Indulgence, and Sacraments to the list as well. No? Let’s hold everyone to the same standard. I see one side saying we can read the scripture and understand it for ourselves, and admittedly this can, has, and will cause problems amongst men as always, but when given a choice between that and having to submit to an “authority” (other than Jesus) over you needed to explain why the bible means the opposite of what it clearly says, because we are just too dumb to get it. I’d go with the first choice, just for the simple reason that the RCC telling me I need them to understand scripture, and all the cases of the RCC teachings being in complete opposition to the words clearly written (graven images for example), is a HUGE red flag as far as I’m concerned. That is strait up cult like behavior, “You need me to really understand, truth ONLY comes from me”, can no one here see this?
I am no expert nor do I claim the perfect answers, but to me this is just as plain as day and unless one swallows all the RCC says while completely disregarding EVERYTHING else, I don’t see how it makes ANY logical sense. Also this isn’t anything more than my observation.
I am no expert nor do I claim the perfect answers, but to me this is just as plain as day and unless one swallows all the RCC says while completely disregarding EVERYTHING else, I don’t see how it makes ANY logical sense. Also this isn’t anything more than my observation.
no matter who talks with him (or any one else deceived by the demonic rcc heresy)
even if JESUS HIMSELF (rose from the dead and) talked with him, he would do as his "fathers" do and attempt to CRUCIFY HIM AGAIN! (as they do every day in their abominable practices).....
when someone is saved (from any such deception) , they have to want to know the truth and be willing to,
otherwise not even GOD gets through to them (oh, HE COULD, but HE WON'T - HE WON'T VIOLATE the choice deadly as it is that they have made; HE WON'T VIOLATE their free will)
even if JESUS HIMSELF (rose from the dead and) talked with him, he would do as his "fathers" do and attempt to CRUCIFY HIM AGAIN! (as they do every day in their abominable practices).....
when someone is saved (from any such deception) , they have to want to know the truth and be willing to,
otherwise not even GOD gets through to them (oh, HE COULD, but HE WON'T - HE WON'T VIOLATE the choice deadly as it is that they have made; HE WON'T VIOLATE their free will)
I'm thinking Jesus made a distinction in Mt 16:19 between Peter (petros, small rock) and
this rock (petra, mass of rock) because this rock is Jesus himself (Mt 21:42; Eph 2:20-21;
Ac 4:11; Ro 9:32; 1Pe 2:6) on whom the church is built.
It is the body of Christ, and no one else on earth, which has the keys to the kingdom of heaven; i.e.,
the gospel, binding and loosing, in the preaching of the gospel, what has been bound in heaven and
what has been loosed in heaven (Jn 3:18, 36).
this rock (petra, mass of rock) because this rock is Jesus himself (Mt 21:42; Eph 2:20-21;
Ac 4:11; Ro 9:32; 1Pe 2:6) on whom the church is built.
It is the body of Christ, and no one else on earth, which has the keys to the kingdom of heaven; i.e.,
the gospel, binding and loosing, in the preaching of the gospel, what has been bound in heaven and
what has been loosed in heaven (Jn 3:18, 36).
Last edited:
No problem at all man, and thank you. I also appreciate thecivil way you've answered me as well. Like my last question about holdingeveryone to the "same standard". I honestly didn't think of it in theterms of claiming "Sola Scriptura", and just asked what I did withoutever even thinking of the fact that's not what you claim too. Logically it madesense as soon as I read your response. Not that I agree with your viewstotally, but the argument you were making was a logical one. I also find this amuch better way of communicating in general, because once the fingers startpointing and the accusations start flying back and forth, all parties arebunkered down and unwilling to give an inch. Even to just try to understandeach other completely. God has also been putting the love between believers onmy heart heavy as of late, and how this love was what blew the minds of thewhole world when this all started. The fact that these people were willing to doanything for each other as brothers in Christ. Even if I feel you are wrong andvice versa, we should confront each other in love (a hard thing over theinternet with words admittedly) and try to bring each other into His peace andmercy. I want to practice this to the best of my feeble ability, and think thisexchange has been a good one. Thank you too for not taking my questionsoffensively.
. Thank you for that !