Yep, and the verses leading up to that statement confirm that Peter confesses Christ at the Messiah. And it's that fact, in my opinion, that he makes the statement to Peter that he will establish his Church and that foundation for the Church with full reliance upon Peter. Are you saying that the Church is founded upon Peter? and not Christ? Or am I misinterpreting?

 

You are misinterpreting. Christ left Peter as the Vicar of the church. His representative on Earth to guide his disciples after his ascencion into Heaven. If you take the Bible literally, then Christ entrusted Peter and those that followed Peter as Pope to be the direct line of communication between Jesus and the flock.

You are misinterpreting. Christ left Peter as the Vicar of the church. His representative on Earth to guide his disciples after his ascencion into Heaven. If you take the Bible literally, then Christ entrusted Peter and those that followed Peter as Pope to be the direct line of communication between Jesus and the flock.

 

The early church did not view Peter as the Pope. Paul himself had to confront Peter to his face because Peter was being inconsistent on an issue.

 

Prominent church leader? Yes. Pope? No.

You are misinterpreting. Christ left Peter as the Vicar of the church. His representative on Earth to guide his disciples after his ascencion into Heaven. If you take the Bible literally, then Christ entrusted Peter and those that followed Peter as Pope to be the direct line of communication between Jesus and the flock.

I disagree. I believe that when the veil was rent in twain, man doesn't need an intermediary between himself and Christ. He can enter into the holy of holies because Christ tore down that barrier with his work on the cross. I do believe that Peter was the first and perhaps most important founder of the spread of the Gospel. As he preached in Acts it's hard to deny. And I won't go any farther because I understand we now are entering into an area where we won't see eye to eye on church doctrine considering I'm not Catholic. But I do agree that Peter was a critical figure in the foundation and spread of the gospel.

Yep, and the verses leading up to that statement confirm that Peter confesses Christ at the Messiah. And it's that fact, in my opinion, that he makes the statement to Peter that he will establish his Church and that foundation for the Church with full reliance upon Peter. Are you saying that the Church is founded upon Peter? and not Christ? Or am I misinterpreting?

 

I would say that the Church was founded by Christ and His teachings upon Peter, yes.

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5).

I would say that the Church was founded by Christ and His teachings upon Peter, yes.

So, I assume that you view Peter as more than a "preacher" of the gospel. More than a disciple of Christ. Am I correct?

The early church did not view Peter as the Pope. Paul himself had to confront Peter to his face because Peter was being inconsistent on an issue.

 

Prominent church leader? Yes. Pope? No.

 

He was the leader. The issue that he was inconsistent on was how Gentiles (which Paul was) would enter the church and what their influence could be.

So, I assume that you view Peter as more than a "preacher" of the gospel. More than a disciple of Christ. Am I correct?

 

Yes. I believe he is an earthly representative of God or Christ.

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5).

 

That is Paul's Epistle to Timothy, this is his battle with Peter. The Gospels say that Jesus directly spoke to Peter and established him as the Rock.

He was the leader. The issue that he was inconsistent on was how Gentiles (which Paul was) would enter the church and what their influence could be.

 

Paul was also Jewish. His main work was to usher in the gospel to the non-Jewish world.

 

Regardless, Peter was still in error & needed confronting.

Paul was also Jewish. His main work was to usher in the gospel to the non-Jewish world.

 

Regardless, Peter was still in error & needed confronting.

 

Correct, he was Jewish. I had him pegged as Roman for some reason due to his persecutions.

Correct, he was Jewish. I had him pegged as Roman for some reason due to his persecutions.

 

I didn't say you were wrong, because Paul does claim Roman citizenship when he appeals to Caesar. His request is granted, so either his mother was a Roman citizen or he paid for the privilege of Roman citizenship.

 

Paul was a lot of things, to be honest. :lol:

Watusi, would you be willing to share some NT verses that make it clear that homosexuality is a sin?

 

Answer, Part II

 

I was going to go into a long discussion of Mat 19: 4-6 and I found a great article by Kyle Butt that completely went along with my thoughts only he explains it better and with a much greater talent in writing, I might add. So in giving him that credit, following is excerpted from that article.

 

 

 

Matthew 19: 4-6

"4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’

5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?

6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

 

 

One of the most common arguments made in support of homosexuality is that Jesus Christ did not explicitly condemn the practice. Supposedly, since Jesus never stated specifically: “Homosexuality is a sin,” then His failure to denounce the lifestyle can be interpreted to mean that He approved of it. I do not subscribe to that reasoning.

 

First, Jesus explained to His followers that He did not have time to teach them everything they needed to know. He told them that the Holy Spirit would bring to their remembrance all that He had taught, and would include additional teaching that He had not had time to cover. He told His disciples: “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth has come, He will guide you into all truth” (John 16:12-13). When we look to the inspired writings of the New Testament, we see the authors boldly and specifically condemning the practice based on the revelation they received from the Holy Spirit. Thus, it is wrong to suggest that only the “words in red” are Jesus’ teachings. On the contrary, He foretold that more teaching would be done after His return to heaven due to the fact that the apostles “could not bear” all of it at the time.

 

Second, even if Jesus did not explicitly condemn the practice (though He actually did), that certainly could not be used as evidence that He condoned the practice. For instance, where does Jesus explicitly state that bestiality is wrong? Where in the New Testament does Jesus state that polygamy is wrong? Where are the “words in red” that specifically condemn pedophilia? Are we to suppose that the Son of God condoned using crystal meth because there is not an explicit statement from Jesus’ mouth that says “do not smoke crystal meth?” The idea that silence from Jesus on a subject means He approved of or condoned the practice cannot be substantiated.

 

Finally, it must be considered that Jesus did, in fact, speak against homosexuality. On numerous occasions, Jesus condemned the sins of adultery (Matthew 19:18), sexual immorality (Matthew 19:9) and fornication (Matthew 15:19). These terms describe any type of sexual intercourse that is not within the confines of a marriage ordained by God. Jesus then proceeded to define exactly what God views as a morally permissible marriage. He stated:

 

Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate (Matthew 19:4-6).

 

By defining marriage as between one male and one female, Jesus effectively condemned all other arrangements, including but not limited to one man and two women, one woman and two men, three men and one woman, three men and three women, one man and one man, one woman and one animal, etc. You can see the overwhelming logic of such. For Jesus to have to explicitly condemn every assortment of genders and numbers would be absurd. When He defined marriage between one man and one woman, He clearly showed that such an arrangement is the only one authorized by God.

He was the leader. The issue that he was inconsistent on was how Gentiles (which Paul was) would enter the church and what their influence could be.

 

He was confronted for not eating with and drawing away from the Gentiles, for whom he was extolled to preach to. That was the reason for Paul's rebuke in Galatians.

He was confronted for not eating with and drawing away from the Gentiles, for whom he was extolled to preach to. That was the reason for Paul's rebuke in Galatians.

 

Correct, but that was only part of the major issue. Do we follow the laws of Moses still or do we allow people is as they are? That was the major issue.