The Primacy of Peter
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

#562 Sep 30, 2013
William wrote:
"It seems odd that Jesus never mentioned a Bible especially if your salvation depended on your interpretation of said Bible.
He had 3 years to come up with that one."
He sure did. Then he has to go and get another apostle that wasn't even around when he was with the other 12 to go and do something that he never told the 12 about at any point during his time with them.
Weird.
How wrong you are. This is fact. History is awesome.

Matthias was baptized by John the Baptist and was a disciple from the beginning.

"One hundred and twenty people were gathered for prayer and reflection in the upper room, when Peter stood up to propose the way to make the choice.

Peter had one criterion, that, like Andrew, James, John, and himself, the new apostle be someone who had been a disciple from the very beginning, from his baptism by John until the Ascension. The reason for this was simple, the new apostle would must become a witness to Jesus' resurrection. He must have followed Jesus before anyone knew him, stayed with him when he made enemies, and believed in him when he spoke of the cross and of eating his body -- teachings that had made others melt away.

Two men fit this description -- Matthias and Joseph called Barsabbas. They knew that both these men had been with them and with Jesus through his whole ministry. But which one had the heart to become a witness to his resurrection. The apostles knew that only the Lord could know what was in the heart of each. They cast lots in order to discover God's will and Matthias was chosen. He was the twelfth apostle and the group was whole again as they waited for the coming of the Holy Spirit."
William

Goodwater, AL

#563 Sep 30, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
How wrong you are. This is fact. History is awesome.
Matthias was baptized by John the Baptist and was a disciple from the beginning.
"One hundred and twenty people were gathered for prayer and reflection in the upper room, when Peter stood up to propose the way to make the choice.
Peter had one criterion, that, like Andrew, James, John, and himself, the new apostle be someone who had been a disciple from the very beginning, from his baptism by John until the Ascension. The reason for this was simple, the new apostle would must become a witness to Jesus' resurrection. He must have followed Jesus before anyone knew him, stayed with him when he made enemies, and believed in him when he spoke of the cross and of eating his body -- teachings that had made others melt away.
Two men fit this description -- Matthias and Joseph called Barsabbas. They knew that both these men had been with them and with Jesus through his whole ministry. But which one had the heart to become a witness to his resurrection. The apostles knew that only the Lord could know what was in the heart of each. They cast lots in order to discover God's will and Matthias was chosen. He was the twelfth apostle and the group was whole again as they waited for the coming of the Holy Spirit."
Yeah I know all about Acts 1 and that exchange, and it has nothing to do with Paul being made the apostle to the Gentiles later. Paul, in Acts 1-8, was most definitely not worthy of being called an apostle to anybody.
William

Goodwater, AL

#564 Sep 30, 2013
Sorry about the double post. Phone acting up.
William

Birmingham, AL

#565 Sep 30, 2013
MarkEden wrote:
<quoted text>
All I know is that we've got the body and you don't.
You belong to a body known as the Roman Catholic Church, while I do not.

That is a true statement.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#566 Oct 1, 2013
William wrote:
<quoted text>
You belong to a body known as the Roman Catholic Church, while I do not.
That is a true statement.
http://www.vatican.va/various/basiliche/san_p...
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

#567 Oct 1, 2013
William wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah I know all about Acts 1 and that exchange, and it has nothing to do with Paul being made the apostle to the Gentiles later. Paul, in Acts 1-8, was most definitely not worthy of being called an apostle to anybody.
Just answering your quote

"Then he has to go and get another apostle that wasn't even around when he was with the other 12... Weird"

Do you really believe that in 3 years of teaching that the 4 Gospels which basically repeat themselves is all that Jesus taught the Apostles.

Do you really believe Jesus said, Hey guys, I have 40 days before I leave you, lets party down until then.

When somebody finds out he is leaving this world, he makes arrangements. He puts everything in order.

Don't you think Jesus made arrangements before he ascended?

Nope, you answer, somebody did not write it down, or even if somebody did , those writings did not survive so it can't be true.
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#568 Oct 1, 2013
http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/reviews/jwo-rev...

What did Jesus say about the primacy of Peter, or any other disciple? Just wondering what the opinions are of this article - but don't bother commenting if you haven't read it and considered what it says...
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#569 Oct 1, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
Just answering your quote
"Then he has to go and get another apostle that wasn't even around when he was with the other 12... Weird"
Do you really believe that in 3 years of teaching that the 4 Gospels which basically repeat themselves is all that Jesus taught the Apostles.
Do you really believe Jesus said, Hey guys, I have 40 days before I leave you, lets party down until then.
When somebody finds out he is leaving this world, he makes arrangements. He puts everything in order.
Don't you think Jesus made arrangements before he ascended?
Nope, you answer, somebody did not write it down, or even if somebody did , those writings did not survive so it can't be true.
Luke was Paul's side-kick, and if Jesus or the twelve had said anything about Paul, or Peter's primacy - it would have been in Acts 1 - Jesus gave the directions, but how many heard what He said? Precious few. Most just like being pew-holders while they are talked at for an hour by people who like to talk a lot but show litte functional truth.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#570 Oct 1, 2013
I see we have been provided a link to yet another low end prot cult out to make a buck. This cultist uses words such as "approximation" "likely" "best estimate" "variants" in his magnum opus. Cracks me up!
William

Birmingham, AL

#571 Oct 1, 2013
"Do you really believe that in 3 years of teaching that the 4 Gospels which basically repeat themselves is all that Jesus taught the Apostles."

I do not, but I do know that what it written down is exactly what God intended to have made known regarding what went on during Christ's earthly ministry. The statement about there being lots of other things that Christ did and said during that time is nice to know, but it has no bearing on anything.

We don't know what else he did or said, so there is no point in speculating about it. It's like these people that get all worked up over who they think wrote the epistle to the Hebrews. Another pointless waste of time.
William

Birmingham, AL

#572 Oct 1, 2013
"When somebody finds out he is leaving this world, he makes arrangements. He puts everything in order.

Don't you think Jesus made arrangements before he ascended?"

I certainly do. And I can read about it in the four accounts of the first four books of the New Testament and in the first chapter of Acts. And nowhere in any of these accounts does it make mention of Christ giving detailed instructions to Peter regarding what he later gave to Paul.

Paul even has to explain what was given to him to Peter, James, and John, as is recorded in the Galatian letter (second chapter) and the account in Acts. Chapters 9-15 in Acts detail the emergence of Paul and him having to go and explain himself to the Jewish audience.
's
And nowhere did Christ give any inking about a guy like Paul having to come along after he ascended to Peter and company. Paul's appearance and ministry was a complete surprise to everyone then, and why this guy even had to show up in the first place is also lost on most everyone even today.
Annoying Proxy

France

#573 Oct 1, 2013
MarkEden wrote:
I see we have been provided a link to yet another low end prot cult out to make a buck.
It is very likely Jesus would be considered a low end prot. He had no place to lay his head, no record of walking around with a gold crown on his head with gold staff and gold all over his clothes. He never had the a place like the Vatican to sit upon his thrown while the priests held a book for him to read from. Sounds low end to me, certainly not uppity Catholic.
MarkEden wrote:
This cultist uses words such as "approximation" "likely" "best estimate" "variants" in his magnum opus. Cracks me up!
You cannot even use those words when you justify Peter as being the primary apostle because there is absolutely no case for that in scripture.
Dave P

Olive Hill, KY

#574 Oct 1, 2013
Barnsweb wrote:
http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/ reviews/jwo-reviews/101-jesus- on-church-structure.html
What did Jesus say about the primacy of Peter, or any other disciple? Just wondering what the opinions are of this article - but don't bother commenting if you haven't read it and considered what it says...
Guess he forgot Peter said he was a "fellow" elder. Leave out stuff conveniently. Also a couple of verses out of context to make his point. Otherwise, more slander- everything is Paul's fault. Ruins all of the valid points he actually made.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#575 Oct 1, 2013
Annoying Proxy wrote:
<quoted text>It is very likely Jesus would be considered a low end prot. He had no place to lay his head, no record of walking around with a gold crown on his head with gold staff and gold all over his clothes. He never had the a place like the Vatican to sit upon his thrown while the priests held a book for him to read from. Sounds low end to me, certainly not uppity Catholic.
<quoted text>You cannot even use those words when you justify Peter as being the primary apostle because there is absolutely no case for that in scripture.
So says the spokesman for the Sproulist cult.

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#576 Oct 1, 2013
Annoying Proxy wrote:
<quoted text>It is very likely Jesus would be considered a low end prot. He had no place to lay his head, no record of walking around with a gold crown on his head with gold staff and gold all over his clothes. He never had the a place like the Vatican to sit upon his thrown while the priests held a book for him to read from. Sounds low end to me, certainly not uppity Catholic.
<quoted text>You cannot even use those words when you justify Peter as being the primary apostle because there is absolutely no case for that in scripture.
The pope and bishops wear garments with gold, in churches with gold, because every Sunday that we celebrate the Heavenly liturgy, which is happening in Heaven, we also celebrate it in our local parishes. We are entering into that one Mass for all eternity that was foreshadowed in the Old Testament.

Read Exodus 25 and 1 Kings 6. You will see in the Old Testament that the whole interior of the Temple in Jerusalem was overlaid with gold. This was a foreshadowing of what was to come in the New Covenant in the book or Revelation. The liturgy we attend each Sunday incorporates many small details that we see in the Book of Revelation. Even the Early Church Fathers, the very first Christians, who lived from 100 A.D. to 787 A.D., saw this.

Does your Church look like what is in Revelation?

Some high end Prots get it, low ends have no clue.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#577 Oct 1, 2013
Mike_Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
The pope and bishops wear garments with gold, in churches with gold, because every Sunday that we celebrate the Heavenly liturgy, which is happening in Heaven, we also celebrate it in our local parishes. We are entering into that one Mass for all eternity that was foreshadowed in the Old Testament.
Read Exodus 25 and 1 Kings 6. You will see in the Old Testament that the whole interior of the Temple in Jerusalem was overlaid with gold. This was a foreshadowing of what was to come in the New Covenant in the book or Revelation. The liturgy we attend each Sunday incorporates many small details that we see in the Book of Revelation. Even the Early Church Fathers, the very first Christians, who lived from 100 A.D. to 787 A.D., saw this.
Does your Church look like what is in Revelation?
Some high end Prots get it, low ends have no clue.
This is even more apparent in the Orthodox Church where the highly ornamented interiors are believed to be literal representations of heaven itself plus the extraordinary Eucharistic Prayer I dates from AD 400.
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#578 Oct 1, 2013
William wrote:
"When somebody finds out he is leaving this world, he makes arrangements. He puts everything in order.
Don't you think Jesus made arrangements before he ascended?"
I certainly do. And I can read about it in the four accounts of the first four books of the New Testament and in the first chapter of Acts. And nowhere in any of these accounts does it make mention of Christ giving detailed instructions to Peter regarding what he later gave to Paul.
Paul even has to explain what was given to him to Peter, James, and John, as is recorded in the Galatian letter (second chapter) and the account in Acts. Chapters 9-15 in Acts detail the emergence of Paul and him having to go and explain himself to the Jewish audience.
's
And nowhere did Christ give any inking about a guy like Paul having to come along after he ascended to Peter and company. Paul's appearance and ministry was a complete surprise to everyone then, and why this guy even had to show up in the first place is also lost on most everyone even today.
Jesus warned about Paul, and others like him.

How many lies disqualifies a prophet or apostle if they claim to speak in the name of the LORD or His Christ?
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#579 Oct 1, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
Guess he forgot Peter said he was a "fellow" elder. Leave out stuff conveniently. Also a couple of verses out of context to make his point. Otherwise, more slander- everything is Paul's fault. Ruins all of the valid points he actually made.
Why claim to believe Peter, when in practice you believe Paul over Jesus AND Peter?
William

Birmingham, AL

#580 Oct 1, 2013
"Jesus warned about Paul, and others like him."

Jesus warned about fake Jews like AENT. So much so that he tossed them out of the temple.

But they always manage to show back up.
Dave P

Owingsville, KY

#581 Oct 1, 2013
Barnsweb wrote:
<quoted text>
Why claim to believe Peter, when in practice you believe Paul over Jesus AND Peter?
How about believing all three? They all agree. Too bad your Jesus words only guy can't or won't see that.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Axton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Christians Murder American Indians (Jan '12) Jun 18 Kevo8263 32
Catholics (Feb '14) Jun 17 mpetershat 3,338
The Bible teaches that the Earth will never end (Apr '15) May '16 Anonymous 38
thomas jefferson edwards Apr '16 nuks67 2
Norm Fields – FORMER employee of Johnny Robertson (Feb '12) Apr '16 GunFighter 29
Stop erasing my comments! Apr '16 Truth teller 1
stp 500 Apr '16 Dale 2

Axton Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Axton Mortgages