Wretched - 25 (such) "reasons Peter was not the first Pope"

Wretched - 25 (such) "reasons Peter was not the first Pope" · Mariology · Michael Lofton Qualifies Protestantism as Self-Contradictory - a Qualified Agreement · More on Papacy

I'll not actually link, but here is the link if you take the trouble to copypaste it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJbHOyBoziw
it's bad, I've warned you.

Here are my answers:

INTRO - noting that "Wretched" like many others in this business tactically omits verse 19, actually, already the second half of verse 18.

I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

1:21 Wretched is also wrong in giving a picture of Antipope Bergoglio as "illustration" of the Catholic or Roman system.

You know "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" sounds very much, like, the true Church is always present on earth.

The passage Matthew 28:16-20 sounds even more clearly so.

Catholicism is a realistic candidate, but your own system isn't.

25 "Jesus was not installing Peter as the first papa, he was being clever."

Actually, so clever that he gave Simon Bar-Jonah the Aramaic transscription of the Hebrew name of the Cohen Gadol of that year. Yes, Kephas = Kaiaphas, as a name.

But apart from that, being clever has nothing to do with the promises involved in verse 19, which Wretched omitted.

2:30 [pebble/rock, in Greek] It would seem that the Aramaic (Syriac) translation has the word "kipha" in both places, though.

2:45 "Jesus wasn't saying 'go and take over my church, Peter' "

This is where it is so tactical that Wretched left out verse 19. Giving of keys means naming of prime minister. The key actually belongs to Christ, so if Christ hands it to Peter, he's making Peter His vicar.

24 "Jesus was making a contrast"

Like "I carry keys, you'll carry them" or "I am the good shepherd, so you get to shepherd them"?

The former as said verse 19, future promise, and the latter in John 21.

If those are contrasts, what are likenesses?

23 "Jesus disrespects the new pope just a few verses later."

According to Catholic doctrine, it's still just a pope apprentice and upcoming Pope at this moment.

The actual naming of Peter as Pope as in "from now on you are Pope" was in John 21. He was obviously getting up to Heaven sth like - 33 days? even less? - later. And this is when He wants a vicar.

[4:05 c. - it is also false to use Antipope Emeritus Ratzinger as illustration for Catholic papacy.]

22 "Jesus identifies who's the greatest in His kingdom"

Actually it was in Matthew chapter 18. And it is about dignity of honour, not about dignity of rule. Hence no refutation against papacy.

In Matthew 22, you find the greatest commandment.

21 "Jesus describes who's the greatest"

Well, this time over Wretched at least got the chapter and verse right. Anyway, it is still about spiritual greatness, not about the greatness of rule.

While it is still wrong to cite Ratzinger as Pope, (or Pope Emeritus), I think he had some really good things to say about the wardrobe issue. The Pope is honoured for what he represents. His wardrobe is for what he represents. And it's also to make him humbly reminded of how inadequate he is, humanly speaking, without God's help.

21 bis / 20? "Jan Hus had a painting"

The year he died at the Council of Constance, it was cleared that John XXIII was not accepted by that council.

Perhaps Jan Hus' painting was of Signor Cossa, aka John XXIII (the name was reused by a later Antipope).

Also at Constance was Carlo Malatesta, telling the council that Gregory XII had resigned (he died humbly in Ancona).

Hus was burned at the orders of a Council which at present had no Pope. 2 days after Carlo Malatesta had told how Gregory XII had resigned.

20 bis / 20? Three denials.

You may have noted that this was before John 21. Therefore before Peter actually became Pope.

Btw, you may also have noted what Jesus told him when foreseeing the denials. "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not come to nothing"

In other words, Peter (from after the denials on) was immune from losing the faith, and so are validly elected Popes after him.

19 Galatians 2.

Two solutions. 1) The Cephas in question was NOT Peter. This was the view of St. Clement the Stromatist.
2) A lesson to Popes to take lessons even from inferiors (which Pope John XXII did after he had strayed into teaching soul sleep up to Doomsday).

18 "Peter didn't identify himself as the Pope"

In 1 Peter 1:1 he actually identifies himself as "an apostle of Jesus Christ," which is why the Popes call their see THE Apostolic see.
In 1 Peter 5:1 he identifies himself as "an ancient" or "a presbyter" - which every bishop is, and by the way, one Catholic Apologist actually considered that the words "episcopos" and "presbuteros" got switched in terminology, so that all NT presbyters are what we call bishops, all NT bishops what we call presbyters.

The Popes still adress non-pope bishops as brothers in the episcopate.

In 2 Peter 1:1 he adds bondservant. Hence "servus servorum Domini" Not just "doulos" but "doulos tôn doulôn" that is.

6:28 In fact "chief apostle" at least he called himself "an apostle" ... everyone knew he was the chief one.

By the way, "in the first century no one ..." is a pretty bad guesswork when facing tradition (even if recorded later) that they in fact did.

It's the kind of Protestant guesswork that gave rise to Atheist guesswork (like "no one knew the 4 Gospels in the first century" - do you like being compared to Richard Carrier?)

Supreme pastor is what Christ called Peter in John 21, right?

17 "Peter shunned the idea of receiving glory"

Well, papacy doesn't claim to be a charismatic office, but a juridic one. If the first Pope also healed people, this was an extra which was absolutely not due to him by the fact of his being Pope. But which God granted him because he was the first Pope.

16 "Peter understood who the rock is"

1 Peter 2:6 Wherefore it is said in the scripture: Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious. And he that shall believe in him, shall not be confounded.

There is more than St. Peter to the "corner stone" ... check this:

Ephesians 2:20 Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

So, while Jesus is the chief corner stone, apostles and prophets are part of the foundation. And Peter closer, since apostle heading apostles.

15 "Peter taught that Christ is the foundation of the church."

8:06 "Peter said that the apostles' _teaching_ was the foundation of the Church, it wasn't about the Apostles themselves."

Excuse me, but what exact passage?

The one "foundation" in St. Peter's letters is:

Foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but manifested in the last times for you,
[1 Peter 1:20]

But if we go by "corner stone" ...

Wherefore it is said in the scripture: Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious. And he that shall believe in him, shall not be confounded.
To you therefore that believe, he is honour: but to them that believe not, the stone which the builders rejected, the same is made the head of the corner:
[1 Peter 2:6-7]

So verse 6 has about Jesus "corner stone" simply? No, "chief corner stone" ... and 7 has "corner" simply? No, "head of the corner" ... meaning, the image conveys there are other stones lying next to Jesus and sharing the same architectonic function.

"not the apostles themselves" - well, the teaching ministry of Popes is also about what they teach about Jesus and His law, not what they have as personal tastes. A pope may even like swinging a sword and riding on a horse, as long as his teaching is OK, that's still a Pope.

In the case of Antipope Ratzinger and Pope Michael, I find the former more sympathetic in both beer taste and German / American accents, but the valid Pope is the one who taught correctly, not the one with the nicest accent or the best taste in beer.

14 "Paul confirms Jesus is the corner stone, not Peter"

Ephesians 2:20 actually does involve Peter in the foundation, as just cited. *Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:*

So, Peter is still part of what the Church is founded on.

So, your quip only functions if a) you deny that Peter was an apostle or b) you say that every stone in the foundation except the chief corner stone is pure decoration. The first is directly antibiblical and the second goes against what "foundation" actually means.

13 1 Corinthians 3:10 - 12

According to the grace of God that is given to me, as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation; and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble:

It's obvious that we are not dealing with the structural foundation of the Church, but with the moral foundation of good works.

12 Devotions to men ...


Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ.
[1 Corinthians 1:12]

It may be noted that the dissensions in Corinth had no approval from Paul, here given as one of the faction heads, and presumably none from Cephas either, though he be given as another of the faction heads.

It may also be noted, Calvin and Spurgeon are great examples of men that YOU are devoted to.

11 The old testament identified the rock as divine.

Sure, and the old testament also includes a given name Elitzur (it's my fourth first name), which means "God's rock" and is nevertheless given to men.

10:18 Yes, Psalms 18 (17, I suppose you mean) calls God rock, but Psalm 22 (you'd call it 23) calls Him shepherd.

And in John 21, Jesus made Peter shepherd. In Matthew 16, He promised he would be rock. In both cases, don't read, excluding God, or excluding Christ Himself, but by participation. Key is John 20, said not to all believers, but to Apostles Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.

While we are at it, When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. - Breathing on the ordinand is still part of Ordination.

10 "The early Church honoured the teachings of the Apostles, but not the Apostles themselves"

Heavy eisegesis. They for instance honoured secondary relics of them or at least of St. Paul:

So that even there were brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs and aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out of them.
[Acts of Apostles 19:12]

Acts 2:42 And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers.

The word translated persevering is προσκαρτερέω in the form of a nominative plural of the present active participle. Now, what does προσκαρτερέω mean?

"to join, adhere to; to be ready; to give attention, be faithful; to spend much time together"

So, the translation devote themselves to the doctrine of the apostles, well, it's fine if you take "devote themselves to" metaphorically, as I can devote myself to Latin paradigms, but if you mean as an alternative to devotion (social sense) to the apostles themselves, no, that's eisegesis.

9 Argument from silence.

"No verses describe an office that's so crucial"

Except, they do. Several of the ones you cited against papacy are good descriptions of it (and again, I don't like your showing Antipopes when describing papacy).

11:39 "a succession plan for an unbroken chain of popes"

Yes, I do. For Popes and bishops in fact.

And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

All of them died. Well before the end of the world. So, if God is with them, in a specific task like teaching the nations, this means He is promising them to have precisely successors

8 "Paul defines two offices of the Church: Elders and Deacons, no Pope"

Paul is laying out the duties of bishops to ordain presbyters and deacons. Neither Titus nor Tim was going to get involved in electing Linus as successor of Peter (by the way, St. Linus was named by St. Peter before he died, but this was an exception).

To be a bishop, you normally need two things:

• being bishop of somewhere (or some other episcopal function), which is what a Pope becomes of Rome when he gets elected (or Linus after Peter died);
• receiving the power to ordain, which Titus and Timothy had received from Paul, and which Paul had received from disciples in Antioch and these from the Apostles.

Paul is giving detailed instructions about two offices, but there are certainly others, like recognised prophets, and he's not giving detailed instructions about these, so, no reason to imply St. Paul disbelieved papacy just because he didn't instruct about it.

"not Popes and Cardinals"

Peter, in Jerusalem, was surrounded by the other eleven. In Rome, he surrounded himself with clergy (many of whom he or St. Paul had ordained). Archaeologists have dug out house churches, and some Protestants have concluded that Rome in the persecution period had no monarchic episcopate. But the fact is, these house Churches are still there, and they are some of the Cardinals' titles. You could be cardinal bishop of Ostia, cardinal presbyter of so and so (St. Sabina) and cardinal deacon of so and so ... the supposed proof that Rome lacked monarchic bishops is real proof that there were cardinals even back then.

7 Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, (Mt 7)

Sure, and one of Jesus' words was And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

It's abusive to pretend any reference to Jesus being rock or shepherd as disproving Peter was so, since the Catholic teaching is obviously that Christ made Peter participate in His own function.

6 "Jesus did not fight one form of Legalism (Pharisees) to just to institute another form of it (the Pope)."

The problem can be summed up as "what if He did?"

Or, in other words - what if the problem with Pharisees was not "legalism" but wrong laws and law applications.

5 "Every single reformer labelled papacy as Anti-Christian"

I could be smart on saying - did St. Ignatius of Loyola and St. John of the Cross really do that? They are what I consider as legitimate reformers.

But let's face it, I know what guys you mean, and the real answer is, what happened to your 1 Cor 1:12 reference? Is it simply mislaid when you consider the Reformers?

Sorry, I misspelled the Deformers, but unfortunately you are into spelling them with an R instead of a D. Luther, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Bucer, Cranmer, Calvin, Knox, yeah, I have heard of that crew. Can you prove from the Bible that Jesus sent them as Reformers? No.

And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils: they shall speak with new tongues. [18] They shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover.

Do you know what Calvin said of this? If you asked him, the time of miracles came to an end, and when papists declared recent miracles, these were frauds.

Nice way of preparing the way or Bayle, Hume and the modern Apostasy, and also a very tactic way of not dealing with his own total lack of miracles.

13:03 Every single reformer believed the office of papacy is Antichrist.

I agree, and I add, every single reformer (of these ones) is a real addition to the actual seven headed beast, as being up to now either lion (Luther, Cranmer) or _one_ leopard head (Calvin, Knox). The other three leopard heads being Judaism, Islam and (Theistic) Freemasonry.

4 The Puritans believed the same as the Reformers.

Indeed. And they were also murderers, possibly at Salem by bad investigations into who was really a witch, certainly on Ireland with Cromwell's "to Hell or Connaught" and then came the penal laws.

1689 Confession - it is sad that Baptists by this time had joined the Reformers, after decades earlier being their victims. But, yeah, the originals, like Münzer, were arguably also believers in the tenet, but they just had another accent in saying so ... more into sacking people's homes and imposing Communist tyrannies on the local scale, rather than participating marginally in the Puritan tyranny.

Charles Spurgeon - was involved in opposing the words of Christ about correction. Matthew 18:15 - 17 says, there is a time when the Church, as Church, needs to leave a man alone. Spurgeon on the other hand pretends to be charitable in the way of the Inquisitors (who were there for the Catholic societies, not simply for the Church) and not let anyone slip into Hell before doing all possible to save him.

As to his charges (here cited):
a) "puts sacramental efficacy in the places of atonement"

No, but sacramental efficacy is how we come to benefit of the atonement.

b) "puts a mere fallible man like ourselves up as the vicar of Christ on earth"

Were Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, Jude and James fallible men like ourselves? Or were they infallible and inerrant 24/24 every day of our lives? [their lives, my bad]

Well, if God could give them days off from their natural fallibility, to write the Bible, why can't He give the Pope time off from his natural fallibility to get it correctly interpreted?

3 Indulgences. II Macc. 12:46. Mariology. No, She was not sinful. Genesis 3:15 is echoed in Luke 1:42, and in previous verse we are told Elisabeth spoke those words filled with the Holy Ghost.

Praying to saints. James 5:16. Resacrificing Jesus (not a good idea to show Antipope Bergoglio here) ... Malachias 1:11, Psalms 109:4, Hebrews 5:6.

And they've added books to the Bible - no, those attacking indulgences had their own bad reasons to take II Maccabees out of it. And even that won't help, since Jesus wasn't attacking Jewish indulgenced works, like praying on the memorial of someone's death.

And adding works to grace - if you read Ephesians 2:8 through 10, St. Paul does that too. Salvation is not by previous works (verse 9), but into ensuing ones (verse 10).

"If that system has concocted heresy" - my exact sentiments about the Protestant system. The heresies on these issues are all yours.

2 "Jesus is not building His Church on a system with bad fruit."

If the French Revolution is a fruit of Cromwell's English Revolution, and that of Knox' Scottish Revolution, aka "Reform" (sorry for spelling a D word with an R, but you do), how has Protestantism not carried bad fruit? Yeah, even unto the Russian Revolution. And up into the heirs thereof, the Fourth Beast, which your leopard head will be joined to by Apocalypse 13.

But Jesus is certainly building a Church in which individuals are free to sometimes have bad fruit. Like building with stubble on the one foundation. Or some ground has too much stones or thistles to carry good fruit.

1 "The office of the papacy robs Jesus of His glory"

Considering that Pope Michael was bowing down his head every single time the text of the Mass even mentioned the name "Jesus" I am hard put to make even any sense of that one ...

Isaiah 42:8 - Popes certainly never claimed the glory of being THE LORD. That glory we don't say Jesus shared with Peter.

EXTRO "if you are a Roman Catholic"

I actually did exactly that kind of soul searching, as a 15 - 16 year old Lutheran, having learned the historic realities of the various Reformations.

I came up with, I need the Church Jesus founded, and of which He said, "the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it" and to which He said "I am with you all days unto the end of the world" and not a "Church" that started out 15 centuries later, or 1479 years after the first Pentecost.

Stephen McCrary

Quite the assumption though. The reformation doesn't affirm the gates of hell have ever prevailed over the church. That would be a RCC charicature. A lot of your doctrines developed over time and were never even practiced by the first and second century church. The truth of your statement hinges on your belief of whether the Pope is truly infallible when teaching or not which of course you believe he is you are RC. Nobody wants to think they went on the wrong path.

Brad Whitt

The first church was in Jerusalem because A they were all jews and B the first conversions happened there.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Stephen McCrary "The reformation doesn't affirm the gates of hell have ever prevailed over the church"

But does it imply it?

"A lot of your doctrines developed over time and were never even practiced by the first and second century church."

Just supposing for argument's sake this were true ...

• A) are these doctrines (at least one of them) damnable?
• B) if so, where was the Church that didn't adopt it?
• C) if no Church was free from adopting damnable doctrine, how did the gates of Hell not prevail?
• D) or if the doctrines are all innocent, what was the fuss at the Reformation about?

"The truth of your statement hinges on your belief of whether the Pope is truly infallible when teaching"

Actually, it doesn't.

It hinges on whether Christ guaranteed at least somewhere substantial (though it could be very reduced at certain moments) a visible body of Christians that did not teach damnable error. And that in turn hinges on what Jesus said about the Church He was going to build, not on the exact position of Peter in it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Brad Whitt "The first church was in Jerusalem"

True, and Peter led Jerusalem before leading Antioch, and led Antioch before leading Rome.

"because A they were all jews"

And the second Church was in Samaria, so that this should soon be corrected.

"and B the first conversions happened there."

True again. And again, Peter went to where the first conversions were to where he was going to get more conversions.

Brad Whitt

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Peter never taught in Rome. he was crucified there. Peter was the apostle to the Jews, not the gentiles. They were all messianic jews not catholics. No peter was not pope. Peter got upset when all those in Cornelius's house bowed down to him. We aren't here to recieve Christ through men and men are not here to be representatives of christ because we can't be we're imperfect.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Brad Whitt "Peter never taught in Rome. he was crucified there."

And before that had occasion to teach from prison and chose Linus as his successor.

"Peter was the apostle to the Jews, not the gentiles."

That was a temporary arrangement, and the Church of Rome celebrates Peter and Paul as more or less twin founders.

"They were all messianic jews not catholics."

As a former Messianic Jew wannabe and a Catholic - we are the real Messianic Jews. Messianic Jews are Messianic para-Talmudics. But Catholics are Messianic Second-Temple.

"No peter was not pope."

Funny that nuance was lost, then.

"Peter got upset when all those in Cornelius's house bowed down to him."

As he was a former pagan, a gentile, Peter could fear some nuance of idol worship in it. Besides Cornelius knew Peter was a Christian, a prominent one, less likely he knew Peter was visible head of the Church, so Cornelius was bowing down for the wrong reason.

"We aren't here to recieve Christ through men"

That's not what the Bible says.

[9] For if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved. [10] For, with the heart, we believe unto justice; but, with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation. [11] For the scripture saith: Whosoever believeth in him, shall not be confounded. [12] For there is no distinction of the Jew and the Greek: for the same is Lord over all, rich unto all that call upon him. [13] For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. [14] How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher? [15] And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things!

That were some verses from Romans chapter 10.

"and men are not here to be representatives of christ because we can't be we're imperfect."

When Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, Jude wrote NT books, were they representatives of Christ or were they imperfect men?

When some decided this Gospel or that epistle and exactly one apocalypse were by representatives of Christ, were these man representatives of Christ of imperfect men?

In the Old Testament Christ had representatives, like Melchidech, like Moses, like Aaron and his descendants, like King David and his descendants. The people of the Old Covenant had access to less grace, they were less perfect and they could represent Christ, but we as Christians can't?

Stephen McCrary

@Hans-Georg Lundahl some interesting questions. I would not consider myself very educated or knowledgeable.

A. I would think that protestants would see Rome's gospel as a false one. In the RCC from my view (yours may be different) Jesus died to make you "saveable" not to save you.

You need to obtain some degree of grace as if it is a currency and not freely given to obtain salvation. I'm not super well versed in the other argumentation but the good news itself is enough to sway me especially when reading scripture. Good works are important in that a good tree produces good fruit. We do good works BECAUSE God saved us not to be saved. He is the one that changes our heart.

B. Again you had church fathers that did push we are saved by God's grace alone. You had fathers that went the other way. I believe the early catholic church was closer to scripture. I think there are those in the RCC today that have placed their trust solely in Christ and not themselves and repented of their sins. I would think they are saved but in the wrong church.

C. The gates never prevailed because the gospel was never eradicated I would think. We have the visible church and the invisible universal church right? I think there has always been a people trusting solely in Christ and turning from their sin upon regeneration.

D. The fuss of the reformation in my eyes was largely gospel focused. You had other issues and abuses like indulgences but I see the gospel message as the primary concern.

I wouldn't say I represent anyone but as I have been learning and looking over the past couple of years these have been my thoughts. I appreciated the well thought out comment as it got me thinking.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Stephen McCrary The key error in your answer is C:

"The gates never prevailed because the gospel was never eradicated I would think. We have the visible church and the invisible universal church right? I think there has always been a people trusting solely in Christ and turning from their sin upon regeneration."

Well, the problem is, the universal church biblically is visible - because it's teaching the nations. And because God's not putting a lantern under a bushel.

You appeal to a "non-heretic" survival that's undocumentable.

Answered twice

by Stephen McCrary, I and II, I'll continue Brad Whitt interspersed with first I ... and then II

Brad Whitt

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Peter was never pagan he was jewish. A messianic jew believed in Christ not in the high priest. Can't you see the Catholic church is exactly like the pharisees. What Paul and peter fought against. It's not about religion brother. It's about a personal relationship with Christ. God makes it clear through the prophet he doesn't want your chanting, swinging of incense in Isaiah 1:10-15. Christ didn't come to die for the pope and so the pope could continue what the jews were already doing. He died for ALL men. So ALL might be saved through him. Not through the pope. It's not about praying to mary or the saints. It's not about chanting or mass or communion. He doesn't care for those things when your heart isn't right.

I

Stephen McCrary

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Luke chapter 9

46 An argument arose among them as to which of them was the greatest. 47 But Jesus, knowing the reasoning of their hearts, took a child and put him by his side 48 and said to them, “Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and dwhoever receives me receives him who sent me. For he who is least among you all is the one who is great.”

Why didn't Jesus say Peter? Where is the office of Pope ever discussed?

Matthew 26

26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and wafter blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for amany bfor the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Jesus call the bread and wine His body and blood which RC's take literally. Why did He also call the wine "fruit of the vine"? Jesus says He won't drink it again until we are in His Father's kingdom. Would Jesus need to drink His own blood?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Brad Whitt "Peter was never pagan he was jewish."

My point is, Cornelius has been Pagan.

"A messianic jew believed in Christ not in the high priest."

He certainly believed in the High Priest or Priest Zacharias.

"Can't you see the Catholic church is exactly like the pharisees."

Sounds like you define Gospel by its antithesis to Pharisaism - while the Gospel records conflicts with Pharisees.

"What Paul and peter fought against."

Where exactly, except where they were saying Jesus is Lord and the then Apostate (or largely) temple was denying it?

"It's not about religion brother. It's about a personal relationship with Christ."

And religion is about?

"God makes it clear through the prophet he doesn't want your chanting, swinging of incense in Isaiah 1:10-15."

I quickly read. First, it was not about chanting and swinging of incense, it was about OT sacrifices. Second, in the context, this was about priests or those offering through the priests who were guilty of people's deaths.

"Christ didn't come to die for the pope and so the pope could continue what the jews were already doing. He died for ALL men. So ALL might be saved through him."

What Catholic Catechism ever said only the Pope is saved?

What is the exact thing that Jews were doing wrong and you accuse us of continuing and where do you find it it wrong?

"Not through the pope."

Actually, He gave the first Pope authority to forgive all sins.

"It's not about praying to mary or the saints. It's not about chanting or mass or communion. He doesn't care for those things when your heart isn't right."

God cares at least some for those who try to get their heart right.

What Catholic Catechism have you read that says this is not the thing you aim for by religion? Or that it's not from Jesus you are getting it?

You say it is "not about ... mass or communion" - have you read I Cor 11:23?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Stephen McCrary Luke 9 is not discussing offices, but ultimate honour before God.

When Christ spoke of His precious Blood as "fruit of the vine" it is after it's appearance.

He took Communion Himself to show these twelve priests what to do.

Stephen McCrary

@Hans-Georg Lundahl will we/He need to drink His blood in His Father's kingdom and if so why? The apostles were arguing about who is greater why did He not say Peter?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Stephen McCrary In the midst of the street thereof, and on both sides of the river, was the tree of life, bearing twelve fruits, yielding its fruits every month, and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

The argument was not about commanding, but about greatness, which is a different thing.

Stephen McCrary

@Hans-Georg Lundahl is Jesus not saying that what is in that cup He will not drink again until in His Father's kingdom? Was the bread and wine a remembrance of what He did or is it the literal blood and body of himself that He will consume after we are resurrected in new bodies? Why does He refer to it as fruit of the vine when it is according to your theology so much more

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Stephen McCrary "is Jesus not saying that what is in that cup He will not drink again until in His Father's kingdom?"

I checked, yes, He said "of this fruit of the vine"

"Was the bread and wine a remembrance of what He did"

It was not a remembrance of what He did there but what He did next day on the Cross. A remembrance which contains the deed (mass is a sacrifice) and the doer (real presence).

"or is it the literal blood and body of himself"

Yes.

"that He will consume after we are resurrected in new bodies?"

After our bodies are renewed in resurrection. We do not get other bodies.

Arguably yes, since He said "this" and arguably my quote from Apocalypse 22:2 shows why. He remains our food in heaven. He is the fruit of the tree of life.

"Why does He refer to it as fruit of the vine when it is according to your theology so much more"

Because it is not less, it can truly be drunk as wine.

II

Stephen McCrary

@Hans-Georg Lundahl you twist my answer though. I argue the light was never put out and you misconstrue that as it being hidden. I understand you see it another way but as far as my viewpoint you misrepresent what I was saying.

Also by "non-heretic survival I assume you are speaking of trusting solely in Christ for your salvation and repenting of your sins?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Stephen McCrary "I argue the light was never put out and you misconstrue that as it being hidden."

It's a question I put - was there a visible church or an invisible one that showed forth the light?

"Also by "non-heretic survival I assume you are speaking of trusting solely in Christ for your salvation and repenting of your sins?"

If that "solely" is what you consider as non-heretical, that is what you need to show as surviving all the time

Brad Whitt

@Hans-Georg Lundahl No he didn't. Once christ came none of the messianic jews believed in a high priest other than christ. 1 Timothy 2:5 states it clearly. read Isaiah 1:10-15. There is no religious thing that you can do to enter heaven or be justified. Ephesians 2 is also clear in it's meaning. You're worshipping a false religion and a part of a demonic church. 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Brad Whitt You have just quoted where Catholics most clearly in Pauline Epistles find Protestantism condemned.

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Protestantism - justification is not of and not to works. Catholicism - justification is not of, but to works.

"No he didn't."

Why is he still in Luke chapter 1, then?

Brad Whitt

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Read that first part again. Not of works, lest any man should boast. You are to walk in good works because God commanded you to do it. ordained means to decree. You do good works because you hold Gods decree to do so in reverance not because it saves you. That's what that entire passage means. Maybe study the English language and context a little more because you just proved my point.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Brad Whitt No, you didn't and I didn't.

What God saves one from is sin, and in it we have no meritorious works.

What God saves us to involves good works, and we don't get a salvation if we refuse them.

That's the point of why Catholicism condemned Luther.