Between Peter & Paul
-
... continue from http://christians.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=232968&page=2
about Peter being Pope, not sure, but Peter is definited have a very important role in the early church, to be reputed as the Apostle to the Jews and also one of the three pillar to the Church.Originally posted by Icemoon:In the first place, Christians cannot agree on whether Peter is appointed to be the Pope.
Need I say more?
Actually how did Paul prove his credibility to Peter ah?
Galatians 2:8-10 (NIV)
actually, Peter did affirmed Paul's writtings as being with the wisdom that God gave him
8For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. 10All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.
2 Peter 3:14-16 (NIV)
14So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. -
My understanding is always this - all of us agree that Peter is important. So how do you show the primacy of Peter?
You need an affirmation that can differentiate Peter the chief Apostle from Peter the Pope.
It is the same reasoning with the perpetual virginity of Mary. IF ONLY Mary defended herself before the angel, saying she is a consecrated virgin. -
U reminded me haha.Originally posted by Icemoon:My understanding is always this - all of us agree that Peter is important. So how do you show the primacy of Peter?
You need an affirmation that can differentiate Peter the chief Apostle from Peter the Pope.
It is the same reasoning with the perpetual virginity of Mary. IF ONLY Mary defended herself before the angel, saying she is a consecrated virgin.
U were to show me the correct intepretation of Isaiah 22:20-22 in comparision to Matthew 16:18
Isaisah 22:20-22 -
On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.
vs
Matthew 16:18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
New Kingdom and New Prime Minsiter Office. -
actually, about the primacy of Peter, I seriously doubt the apostles are really interested in who is the boss, to them there is only one boss, afterall, Christ's teaching is that, he who wants to be boss will be the servant to all the rest.Originally posted by Icemoon:My understanding is always this - all of us agree that Peter is important. So how do you show the primacy of Peter?
You need an affirmation that can differentiate Peter the chief Apostle from Peter the Pope.
It is the same reasoning with the perpetual virginity of Mary. IF ONLY Mary defended herself before the angel, saying she is a consecrated virgin.
Mark 9:34-35
34But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest.
35Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all." -
Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:
There is no interpretation.
U reminded me haha.
U were to show me the correct intepretation of Isaiah 22:20-22 in comparision to Matthew 16:18shall be loosed in heaven."
New Kingdom and New Prime Minsiter Office.[/b]
The gospel authors just model it after OT passages. This is how you get all the prophecies for Christ.
Why not you tell us your understanding of Eliakim? -
In any case, Peter did not become the boss of Jerusalem.Originally posted by vince69:actually, about the primacy of Peter, I seriously doubt the apostles are really interested in who is the boss, to them there is only one boss, afterall, Christ's teaching is that, he who wants to be boss will be the servant to all the rest.
Minus 10 points for the Catholics. -
He replaced Shebna and became Prime Minister of the davidic Kingdom and was granted alot of powers.Originally posted by Icemoon:There is no interpretation.
The gospel authors just model it after OT passages. This is how you get all the prophecies for Christ.
Why not you tell us your understanding of Eliakim? -
Peter became Boss of Rome, capital of empire instead of a backwater province (which was predicted to be destroyed by Christ).Originally posted by Icemoon:In any case, Peter did not become the boss of Jerusalem.
Minus 10 points for the Catholics. -
He wasn't even boss when the Temple was still standing. What does it say?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Peter became Boss of Rome, capital of empire instead of a backwater province (which was predicted to be destroyed by Christ).
Jerusalem a backwater province? Is holiness measured by opulence or whoever is the governor? -
Anyway .. Jerusalem is the alpha and omega place of the world.
During the endtimes .. christians will look up to Mount Zion, not Vatican. -
But out of curiosity, how does being Bishop of one Area show Peter's Primacy.Originally posted by Icemoon:He wasn't even boss when the Temple was still standing. What does it say?
Jerusalem a backwater province? Is holiness measured by opulence or whoever is the governor?
The main reason why Bishop of Rome is Pope (is not because its Rome) But rather its because Peter was the Bishop there. -
Prime Minister only?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:He replaced Shebna and became Prime Minister of the davidic Kingdom and was granted alot of powers.
There were a lot of prime ministers.
In any case .. the allusion to the OT account is an indication that the office of Peter is *temporary*.
Only the davidic kingdom, ie. Christ, is forever. -
Yah .. so we wonder why wasn't Peter bishop of Jerusalem?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:But out of curiosity, how does being Bishop of one Area show Peter's Primacy.
The main reason why Bishop of Rome is Pope (is not because its Rome) But rather its because Peter was the Bishop there.
As the chief apostle, shouldn't he be the bishop of Jerusalem? -
But the office of prime minister existed throughout the Davidic Kingdom.Originally posted by Icemoon:Prime Minister only?
There were a lot of prime ministers.
In any case .. the allusion to the OT account is an indication that the office of Peter is *temporary*.
Only the davidic kingdom, ie. Christ, is forever.
There was a prime minister before Elkiam and he was called Shebna. He was removed because he displeased the Lord but the office remained.
Isaish 22:19 - I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station.
Shebna is described as having an "office". An office, in order for it to be an office, has succeessors which means it cannot be temproary. In order for an earthly kingdom to last, a succession of representatives is required. This was the case in the Old Covenant Davidic kingdom, and it is the case in the New Covenant kingdom which fulfills the Old Covenant. Jesus our King is in heaven, but He has appointed a chief steward over His household with a plan for a succession of representatives. Thats why we have a Pope. -
Peter is the Bishop of All. Why should he be bishop of Juerasalem??? Christ told him to feed his sheeps, not sheeps of Juerasalem etc etc. Peter chose to be bishop of rome and his successors there inherit his office.Originally posted by Icemoon:Yah .. so we wonder why wasn't Peter bishop of Jerusalem?
As the chief apostle, shouldn't he be the bishop of Jerusalem?
Peter could be bishop in any region as his OFFICE do not depend on it. He chose Rome to be his See though and as such all bishop of rome will succeeed him and his office. -
Yes .. he could be bishop of any region.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Peter is the Bishop of All. Why should he be bishop of Juerasalem??? Christ told him to feed his sheeps, not sheeps of Juerasalem etc etc. Peter chose to be bishop of rome and his successors there inherit his office.
Peter could be bishop in any region as his OFFICE do not depend on it. He chose Rome to be his See though and as such all bishop of rome will succeeed him and his office.
The question is .. how come he was not the bishop of Jerusalem?
When you have two choices, Peter could choose.
When you have only one, Peter should take it.
So why didn't he take it? -
Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:
Now you are switching the goalpost.
But the office of prime minister existed throughout the Davidic Kingdom.
There was a prime minister before Elkiam and he was called Shebna. He was removed because he displeased the Lord but the office remained.
Isaish 22:19 - I will thrust you from your[b] office and pull you down from your station.
Shebna is described as having an "office". An office, in order for it to be an office, has succeessors which means it cannot be temproary. In order for an earthly kingdom to last, a succession of representatives is required. This was the case in the Old Covenant Davidic kingdom, and it is the case in the New Covenant kingdom which fulfills the Old Covenant. Jesus our King is in heaven, but He has appointed a chief steward over His household with a plan for a succession of representatives. Thats why we have a Pope.
[/b]
Are you talking about the office or Elkiam? Were the keys given to Elkiam or any person who sat on the office?
The office is temporary because there is no davidic kingdom today. -
1 choice......there were many choices. Peter created 3 Patriachial Sees. There were choices.Originally posted by Icemoon:Yes .. he could be bishop of any region.
The question is .. how come he was not the bishop of Jerusalem?
When you have two choices, Peter could choose.
When you have only one, Peter should take it.
So why didn't he take it? -
So maybe Peter had the keys .. but the later popes don't have it?
-
Those were not created in the beginning.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:1 choice......there were many choices. Peter created 3 Patriachial Sees. There were choices.
I'm talking about the beginning, from Acts of the Apostles. -
The keys were given to Elikiam and who ever the succeeded the office.Originally posted by Icemoon:Now you are switching the goalpost.
Are you talking about the office or Elkiam? Were the keys given to Elkiam or any person who sat on the office?
The office is temporary because there is no davidic kingdom today.
Yes the office is disbanded the moment the Kingdom ceased to exist. But before the destruction of the jewish Kingdom, the elikiam's office existed. Similiarly here, as long as Christ Kingdom stands, the office Christ created for Peter, will exist.
There will be no need of the office of Peter (papacy) once the Kingdom of Christ ceased to exist. -
Perhaps Peter didnt want to be tied down in Juersalem?Originally posted by Icemoon:Those were not created in the beginning.
I'm talking about the beginning, from Acts of the Apostles. -
Huh .. but the office was there before Elikiam took the job. So were the keys given to his predecessors?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:The keys were given to Elikiam and who ever the succeeded the office.
It is confusing because in our example, Elikiam was not the first prime minister. But Peter was the first "pope". So how to compare? -
You can give all sorts of reasons.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Perhaps Peter didnt want to be tied down in Juersalem?
From Acts, we can even see quite clearly that Peter was afraid of a few xiao mao cong (small hairy worms) from James.
How do you expect me to believe he was the Pope and above James? -
"I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah" -20Originally posted by Icemoon:Huh .. but the office was there before Elikiam took the job. So were the keys given to his predecessors?
It is confusing because in our example, Elikiam was not the first prime minister. But Peter was the first "pope". So how to compare?
It can be argued that Elikiam inherited Shebna office but that office was beefed up with even greater authority with the KEYS and POwer of SHUTTING AND OPENING.
So it can be said Elikiam inherited Shebna post but also more powers were granted to him. As a result, he might be what I call, the first Super-Prime Minister haha.
But note, notice there is similiar words used to grant Elikiam primacy and Peter as well. Logically, this 2 verses is sufficient to prove Peter possesed a primacy or an office.