OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 16, 2014, 10:01:31 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Supremacy of Peter  (Read 45023 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Bigsinner
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA  (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 436



« Reply #405 on: May 28, 2008, 08:36:08 PM »

Christos Anesti!

Dishonorable people exploit your honor and good-will. 

If Skippy were truly seeking the Orthodox position, he would have read the responses, checked out all of the links
provided him, and then thanked everyone for their responses.  Instead, he continues to argue, ignore the provided links, and make snide insulting remarks directed not just towards those responding to him, but also to and about the holy scriptures.  He is here to argue, insult, and blaspheme.  Sad

Please don't play his game.  Stop feeding the troll.  God Bless.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,070


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #406 on: May 28, 2008, 09:14:34 PM »

"Bigsinner"

Good advice.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,798


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #407 on: May 28, 2008, 09:59:08 PM »

I am aware of the Fathers'  discussion of Peter's faith but is not an either/or situation.
You cannot separate Peter from his faith.
I would love to see where any Father said that the church was built solely on Christ without Peter.
There is no doubt that Peter is a rock. That is his name!!! Of course God is a rock too and Jesus is the cornerstone.

That only makes it all the more awesome that Jesus would call Simon, the  Rock(Cephas) . Do you think that Jesus didn't know the reference to Rock in Scriptures? And this took place in Caesarea Phillipi where there is a huge rock formation.

Thank you for your opinion. It jives with the modern Roman interpretation of course. Most Early Church Fathers disagree with you take on this.
Have a nice day.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
skippy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #408 on: May 28, 2008, 10:30:22 PM »

I am aware of the Fathers'  discussion of Peter's faith but is not an either/or situation.
You cannot separate Peter from his faith.
I would love to see where any Father said that the church was built solely on Christ without Peter.
There is no doubt that Peter is a rock. That is his name!!! Of course God is a rock too and Jesus is the cornerstone.

That only makes it all the more awesome that Jesus would call Simon, the  Rock (Cephas) . Do you think that Jesus didn't know the reference to Rock in Scriptures? And this took place in Caesarea Phillipi where there is a huge rock formation.
Thank you for your opinion.  Most Early Church Fathers disagree with your take on this.
Not true.
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,798


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #409 on: May 28, 2008, 10:37:50 PM »

I am aware of the Father's discussion of Peter's faith but is not an either/or situation.
You cannot separate Peter from his faith.
I would love to see where any Father said that the church was built solely on Christ without Peter.
There is no doubt that Peter is a rock. That is his name!!! Of course God is a rock too and Jesus is the cornerstone.

That only makes it all the more awesome that Jesus would call Simon, the Rock (Cephas) . Do you think that Jesus didn't know the reference to Rock in Scriptures? And this took place in Caesarea Phillipi where there is a huge rock formation.Not true.

I am afraid it is true. About 1/3 of the EarlyFathers of the Church thought as you do that  the Church is built up Peter himself. Another 1/3 thought it is built upon Peter's Confession of Faith and another 1/3 thought the Church is built upon Christ.

Even if the minority position is correct, it still does not mean that the Roman Pope rules over the entire Church and in fact the historical records show that he did not.

Those are the facts.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
skippy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #410 on: May 28, 2008, 10:39:29 PM »

Christos Anesti!
Alithos anesti !
Quote
If Skippy were truly seeking the Orthodox position, he would have read the responses, checked out all of the links provided him, and then thanked everyone for their responses.
You have all  admirably expressed the EO  position but it is weak as I have shown. BTW which topic are we talking about? Supremacy of Peter or the Trinity as clear revealed and easily understood in scripture.
Quote
Instead, he continues to argue, ignore the provided links, and make snide insulting remarks directed not just towards those responding to him, but also to and about the holy scriptures.  He is here to argue, insult, and blaspheme.
I do not blaspheme. This a debate forum isn't it? So what is the problem with arguments? I do not insult unless insulted.
Logged
skippy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #411 on: May 28, 2008, 10:46:53 PM »

I am afraid it is true. About 1/3 of the Early Fathers of the Church thought as you do that  the Church is built up Peter himself. Another 1/3 thought it is built upon Peter's Confession of Faith and another 1/3 thought the Church is built upon Christ.
Thank you for your opinion and the stats on the early Fathers.
So I agree with 3/3 then. It is a not a matter of either or.
The three positions are reconcilable.  Of course, Jesus founded the church. He is the founder not just the foundation  It is founded on Jesus as the cornerstone with Peter as the Rock either on him as person or on his faith. It matters not since you can't separate Peter the rock from his faith.
No problem. Clear as can be.
So which minority do you choose? I have chosen all three.
Logged
skippy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #412 on: May 28, 2008, 10:52:00 PM »

If Skippy were truly seeking the Orthodox position, he would have read the responses, checked out all of the links
provided him, and then thanked everyone for their responses.
This assumes of course that the positions presented makes logical sense, theological sense  and are in accord with history and tradition. Unfortunately, none of the prerequisites are met. So I continue searching for a better position which I have imperfectly tried to present to the hard hearted.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #413 on: May 28, 2008, 10:55:25 PM »

You have all  admirably expressed the EO  position but it is weak as I have shown.
If you say so. So why not toddle off now and live in "the truth"?

Orthodox Christians,
Don't waste any more time.
"A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject."(Titus 3:10)
Whoever is to be led into captivity will be led into captivity.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #414 on: May 28, 2008, 10:58:16 PM »

Christos Anesti!

Dishonorable people exploit your honor and good-will. 

If Skippy were truly seeking the Orthodox position, he would have read the responses, checked out all of the links
provided him, and then thanked everyone for their responses.  Instead, he continues to argue, ignore the provided links, and make snide insulting remarks directed not just towards those responding to him, but also to and about the holy scriptures.  He is here to argue, insult, and blaspheme.  Sad

Please don't play his game.  Stop feeding the troll.  God Bless.
Wise advice.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
skippy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #415 on: May 28, 2008, 11:00:46 PM »

Even if the minority position is correct, it still does not mean that the Roman Pope rules over the entire Church and in fact the historical records show that he did not.
Thank you again for your opinion. But you seem to believe the EO propaganda with its post schism slant to justify its schismatic separation.
Logged
skippy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #416 on: May 28, 2008, 11:04:46 PM »

If you say so. So why not toddle off now and live in "the truth"?

Orthodox Christians,
Don't waste any more time.
"A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject."(Titus 3:10)
Whoever is to be led into captivity will be led into captivity.
You want to quote scripture.
 Luke 8:16.  "No one lights a lamp and hides it in a jar or puts it under a bed. Instead, he puts it on a stand, so that those who come in can see the light.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2008, 11:05:29 PM by skippy » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #417 on: May 28, 2008, 11:08:03 PM »

Thank you again for your opinion. But you seem to believe the EO propaganda with its post schism slant to justify its schismatic separation.

I am just gonna tell you from experience, that these kind of posts don't help.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
skippy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #418 on: May 28, 2008, 11:10:46 PM »

But Jesus said: You[singular] are Peter (Cephas/Rock)[singular]  and on this very same rock[singular]  I [Jesus]  will build my church.[singular] Was he lying?
Wrong.
Wrong? I am quoting scripture and adding the grammatical number to pronouns and nouns.
You just can't stand me being correct on anything.
You never answered the question. Was Jesus lying when he stated that??
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #419 on: May 28, 2008, 11:13:07 PM »

I am just gonna tell you from experience, that these kind of posts don't help.
LOL Cheesy No, they don't.
Nor does repeating questions that were answered on previous pages.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
skippy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #420 on: May 28, 2008, 11:14:51 PM »

Just after they installed their puppet Latin patriarchate in Constantinople - 1205AD
Not a good time for the church. The crusades ran a muck and the pope was very upset that these things happened.
The crusades really  caused the schism not the excommunications several hundred years earlier, nor filioque nor azyme bread. Curiously of the socalled theologically causes, azyme bread was the biggest at the time.
i do hope you all have gotten over the azyme bread controversy. I apologize for the crusades and any part I had in them.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2008, 11:26:56 PM by skippy » Logged
skippy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #421 on: May 28, 2008, 11:21:48 PM »

The only term in our understanding of the Trinity that wasn't clearly and openly used in scripture was "homoousios" or "one essence."  But if you can't see the underpinnings of "Homoousios" in Christ's dialogues with the Father (in John's gospel), or the interaction of the members of the Trinity in the act of creation, etc., then you'll never see it.
I have no problem with the development of our understanding of the trinity nor  development of dogma. The The EO have a problem with development of dogma.  Orthodox writer Pelikan however uses it over and over in his series of books
Logged
skippy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #422 on: May 28, 2008, 11:23:16 PM »

Nor does repeating questions that were answered on previous pages.
Such as? I am all ears. OZ.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,070


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #423 on: May 28, 2008, 11:25:48 PM »

But Jesus said: You[singular] are Peter (Cephas/Rock)[singular]  and on this very same rock[singular]  I [Jesus]  will build my church.[singular] Was he lying?

Wrong? I am quoting scripture and adding the grammatical number to pronouns and nouns.
You just can't stand me being correct on anything.
You never answered the question. Was Jesus lying when he stated that??  

Yeah, he said wrong, because there is no consensus on the question of gender and intent in the verse - it is ambiguous.  You didn't address that - a question that I gave you references to in a previous post (the one where I say "Oh no, not this argument again!").  You should check out those threads before you try your interpretation of said verse.  There is no consensus that Petros (Peter the man - masculine form of rock) is the petra (feminine form of rock, the default for the noun) that Jesus was referring to - it could have easily been his statement, his Pistis (faith), or something else.

Not a good time for the church. The crusades ran a muck and the pope was very upset that these things happened.  

Upset?  His actions hardly reflected that.  Why don't you prove he was upset, because he was awfully quick to send a "new bishop" for Constantinople (at a time when communication was slow).  Otherwise the historical evidence points to something quite the opposite: complicit after the fact.

--------------------------------

Look, it's not that we don't like a good argument - we just don't like it when you don't check out our sources, previous discussions, etc.  We're not prepared to waste cyberspace by trotting out the same arguments that address your questions and assertions.  Why don't you take an hour or so and read over some of these previous threads - like the ones I linked earlier.  This will facilitate a much more productive discussion, because you'll be able to make arguments against the more advanced positions, rather than just taking elementary potshots which can be refuted (at least from the Eastern mindset and methodology) quite easily.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,070


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #424 on: May 28, 2008, 11:28:07 PM »

I have no problem with the development of our understanding of the trinity nor  development of dogma. The The EO have a problem with development of dogma.  Orthodox writer Pelikan however uses it over and over in his series of books

Why are you jumping all over the place?  There's no "development" in our understanding of the Trinity - just a conscious decision to better verbalize what was believed from before.  Homoousios was good because the Greek language was a better language for expressing abstract thought than Hebrew was - it doesn't mean that the Apostles and their disciples didn't believe it; they just didn't have the words to express it - and they didn't need them, since it was not a debated point.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
skippy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #425 on: May 28, 2008, 11:38:04 PM »

There is no consensus that Petros (Peter the man - masculine form of rock) is the petra (feminine form of rock, the default for the noun) that Jesus was referring to - it could have easily been his statement, his Pistis (faith), or something else.
Consensus of whom? Early fathers? Modern analysts?
I didn't mention gender only number.
If you want to bring up gender, do so, but don't say that the numbers are wrong because you want to argue about gender.
The form of the sentence says You are Peter and on this [very same] rock I will build my church.
The word used for "this" in the Greek means "this very same."
And Koine (NT) Greek made no distinction between petra and petros. No serious scholar of today would try to argue otherwise. And Peter (Cephas) clearly means a huge rock. I shouldn't have to explain Greek to the Greek.

If that wasn't your point illuminate me.
Logged
skippy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #426 on: May 28, 2008, 11:45:36 PM »

There's no "development" in our understanding of the Trinity - just a conscious decision to better verbalize what was believed from before.  Homoousios was good because the Greek language was a better language for expressing abstract thought than Hebrew was - it doesn't mean that the Apostles and their disciples didn't believe it; they just didn't have the words to express it - and they didn't need them, since it was not a debated point.
Going from the scriptures to the formalized creed there was certainly development. So much so that on the way there were schisms ands heresies. As someone said there were underpinnings in the Scriptures but the idea needed development. Better verbalization is development.  The seminal form of the creed is in the scriptures but some one reading scripture for the first time will not find the trinity.  From the seminal form (seed)  to the creed is a big development. It took several councils to finally get it all as it is now and the Latins said they needed to verbalize the "and the son" part because of certain misunderstandings which were leading to heresies in Spain. The east didn't need this verbalization because this one hardly affected the east.

Logged
skippy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #427 on: May 28, 2008, 11:48:05 PM »

  His actions hardly reflected that.  Why don't you prove he was upset, because he was awfully quick to send a "new bishop" for Constantinople (at a time when communication was slow).  Otherwise the historical evidence points to something quite the opposite: complicit after the fact.
I have no intention of defending the crusades and its aftermath. There was good and bad from the crusades but most was bad. Childrens crusade!. What a hairbrained idea!
I think we found a topic we can all agree on.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,273


WWW
« Reply #428 on: May 28, 2008, 11:49:12 PM »

People keep feeding the troll with multiple identities, Sigh.   Huh

One identity hasn't posted in this thread since 5/15 while the other identity has racked up over 70 posts in 2 days.
Logged
skippy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #429 on: May 28, 2008, 11:52:13 PM »

People keep feeding the troll with multiple identities, Sigh.   Huh

One identity hasn't posted in this thread since 5/15 while the other identity has racked up over 70 posts in 2 days.
What are you insinuating here? and you complain about me baiting you.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,273


WWW
« Reply #430 on: May 29, 2008, 12:05:09 AM »

What are you insinuating here? and you complain about me baiting you.

I checked through each one of my 279 posts and I have never accused anyone of baiting me.  If I did, it would be someone else; hence, you would have multiple identities probably to circumvent some restriction on another account.

Mods, Forgive me if I stepped on toes but seeing this repetitive back and forth discussion was too ridiculous to ignore.   Cry
Logged
skippy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #431 on: May 29, 2008, 01:35:44 AM »

I checked through each one of my 279 posts and I have never accused anyone of baiting me.  If I did, it would be someone else; hence, you would have multiple identities probably to circumvent some restriction on another account.

Mods, Forgive me if I stepped on toes but seeing this repetitive back and forth discussion was too ridiculous to ignore.   Cry
You stated :
Quote
People keep feeding the troll with multiple identities, Sigh.   Huh

One identity hasn't posted in this thread since 5/15 while the other identity has racked up over 70 posts in 2 days.
and I asked
Quote
What are you insinuating here? and you complain about me baiting you.
I was told that one definition of Troll means a person  who is baiting.  You used the word troll.  Therefore you accused someone of baiting.
And are you accusing me of being that person?
I have one and only one identity on this site. Several days ago, several people accused me of being Euthymios. I am neither a troll nor using multiple identities. Let's get to serious discussion about supremacy or primacy .
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,166


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #432 on: May 29, 2008, 01:52:40 AM »

I am neither a troll nor using multiple identities.
A troll is as a troll does. (To butcher a line from Forrest Gump.)

Quote
Let's get to serious discussion about supremacy or primacy .
Serious discussion left this thread a few days ago.
Logged
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #433 on: May 29, 2008, 01:54:08 AM »

A troll is as a troll does. (To butcher a line from Forrest Gump.)
Serious discussion left this thread a few days ago.

Lol man I've read that line from you too many times. You can't be Orthodox unless your pulling the same old stuff out. Cheesy
« Last Edit: May 29, 2008, 01:54:21 AM by prodromas » Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #434 on: May 29, 2008, 09:07:13 AM »

But I was told the trinity is clear in scripture  You won't find the word "trinity" [neither in Latin nor Greek ] in scripture I didn't say there is no way to reason it out. But I was told here that the trinity is clear in Scripture. It is not clear. 

Does this help?

  Matthew 28:19: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
 
 2 Corinthians 13:14: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you."
 
1 John 5:7–8: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #435 on: May 29, 2008, 09:47:22 AM »

1 John 5:7–8: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

This is probably not the best reference, since people will bring into question the legitimacy of the 'Comma Johanneum' and its inclusion/introduction into Scripture.  There is a mormon temple nearby and they always bring that up... again and again and again and again.   Roll Eyes
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,798


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #436 on: May 29, 2008, 11:31:22 AM »

Thank you for your opinion and the stats on the early Fathers.
So I agree with 3/3 then. It is a not a matter of either or.
The three positions are reconcilable.  Of course, Jesus founded the church. He is the founder not just the foundation  It is founded on Jesus as the cornerstone with Peter as the Rock either on him as person or on his faith. It matters not since you can't separate Peter the rock from his faith.
No problem. Clear as can be.
So which minority do you choose? I have chosen all three.

Fortunately, we don't really need to choose or make guesses. We merely need to read the history of the Church in the first thousand years to see that any which way you interpret these passages, they did not (in fact) translate into Papal rulership over the entire Church.

None of these interpretations alone or reconciled together, makes the leap to the issue  Church Governance. The Universal Jurisdiction of the Roman Pope is what is at issue here. The modern Roman interpretation of these passages is used as a rationalization for a mode of Church Governance not followed by Peter himself nor any of his successors for generations.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,516


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #437 on: May 29, 2008, 02:59:19 PM »

Or translated from Latin, the language of Mordor, One bishop to rule them all, one bishop to find them, one bishop to bring them all and in the Vatican bind them.  Wink

I know this is far back, but I have to say; that is hilarious!
Logged
skippy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #438 on: May 30, 2008, 11:55:16 AM »

Would you mind if I quote you on my website (assuming I ever decide to have a section devoted to that sort of thing)?
Yes I do mind Please remove it.

 You sent me the link to the already posted distortion and insult. I responded and then you tell me you won't discuss this in a PM. Then you have the nerve to post publicly that I should stop PMing you  when you initiated the first PM.

And the link you sent me shows that you had already posted your distortion.
Logged
skippy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #439 on: May 30, 2008, 09:19:44 PM »

The Others were St. Paul, John, and James the Brother of the Lord- who was the "big shot," so to speak at the apostolic council in Acts 15, NOT Peter.  This is one citation on the part of the Orthodox, that it was James' words and his proclamation that ended the council.  If Peter were considered the supreme leader, he would have had the last word.  But he didn't. 
He did have the last word. He spoke and ended the debate. Then James, the local host, got up and said this is how it is going to be here in my district.

"  After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. "
From whose lips? the lips of Peter.

Quote
Furthermore, there is no evidence that any one apostle had authority over another.
Everyone knew who was in charge. There were the 12 (with newly elected Matthias) to set them straight
Quote
  In Galations 2:11ff, Paul states that he "withstood" Peter "face to face, because he was to be blamed."  If Peter had supremacy, Paul wouldn't have done this.
Peter was preaching one thing and doing something else. Paul called him on his practice not his preaching. You confuse impeccability with infallibility

Logged
skippy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #440 on: May 30, 2008, 10:28:29 PM »

And I have not (and will not) dispute that Rome had the seat of highest appeal.  However, a synod that was ratified by the Pope transferred this seat of appeal to Constantinople, well before the schism.
Excuse my ignorance on this. What synod approved by the Pope ceded appeals to Constantinople? And could you provide the lines that did so?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,166


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #441 on: May 30, 2008, 10:45:27 PM »

He did have the last word. He spoke and ended the debate. Then James, the local host, got up and said this is how it is going to be here in my district.
Interesting that you should read this into the account of Acts 15.  You have any historical documents to back up this assertion, or is this just your own interpretation?

Quote
"  After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. "
From whose lips? the lips of Peter.
But how does this exclude St. Paul, who said the following:

But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, the gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.  (Galatians 2:7-9)

Quote
Everyone knew who was in charge.  There were the 12 (with newly elected Matthias) to set them straight
Again, an interesting reading of Acts 15.  Without the historical record to support you, can you really tell us what the Apostles knew?
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,798


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #442 on: May 31, 2008, 11:50:43 AM »

He did have the last word. He spoke and ended the debate. Then James, the local host, got up and said this is how it is going to be here in my district.

"  After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. "
From whose lips? the lips of Peter.
Everyone knew who was in charge. There were the 12 (with newly elected Matthias) to set them straightPeter was preaching one thing and doing something else. Paul called him on his practice not his preaching. You confuse impeccability with infallibility

More straw man arguments.. No one denies Peter's leadership of the disciples. We deny he had universal and sole jurisdiction over the Church. He had honorary power, not the Monarchical power of today's Roman Pope. Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope wasn't even mildly suggested by Rome until the fourth century.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
skippy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #443 on: May 31, 2008, 12:09:22 PM »


Quote
Skippy-He did have the last word. He spoke and ended the debate. Then James, the local host, got up and said this is how it is going to be here in my district.
Quote
PeterTheAleut-Interesting that you should read this into the account of Acts 15.  You have any historical documents to back up this assertion, or is this just your own interpretation?
I don't recall the James in charge assertion having any documentation so this interpretation is just as valid and much more reasonable.


Quote
Skippy-Everyone knew who was in charge.  There were the 12 (with newly elected Matthias) to set them straight
Quote
PeterTheAleut-Again, an interesting reading of Acts 15.  Without the historical record to support you, can you really tell us what the Apostles knew?
No, but this is a more likely scenario than being forceful from the get go because everyone knew who was in charge and Peter could be a leader in love without having to exert authority but he took charge when needed such that he was the one to end the debate. James summed it up  and said how he was planning on dealing with it in his jurisdiction makes much more sense. Why would Jesus go through the bother of setting the stage for his talk with Peter. Trapsing all the way to Caesarea Phillipi where there was/is a huge rock formation. Not just calling Simon the Rock but changing his name to Cephas [Rock] as testified in many Scripture passages-[BTW a name never used before] Otherwise it is indeed a mighty strange action on the part of Jesus, the God man, to honor Peter just so he could be first in line for processions and the buffet when Jesus  condemned such behavior in the pharisees. And why would it depend on his being faithful when his revelation was from God not from flesh and blood indicating that future revelation from God was likely too.

Jesus remembered to replace the twelve tribes with twelve apostles. Isn't it more likely that Jesus had thought ahead, so to speak, and set the Apostles in charge as bishops and he didn't forget to put someone in Moses' seat? Do the known facts refute my scenario ? No,  and my scenario is more likely.

   
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,798


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #444 on: May 31, 2008, 01:09:13 PM »

No, but this is a more likely scenario than being forceful from the get go because everyone knew who was in charge and Peter could be a leader in love without having to exert authority but he took charge when needed    

This is the party line. I heard it repeated not long ago on an EWTN show. James was in charge during that council not Peter, the records are clear. Therefore, Rome needs to come up with a rationalization since the historical record goes against them . Apparently the excuse is that Peter was soooooo much in charge he didn't need to show it... or some variation on that theme.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,166


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #445 on: May 31, 2008, 01:18:28 PM »

I don't recall the James in charge assertion having any documentation so this interpretation is just as valid and much more reasonable.

 No, but this is a more likely scenario than being forceful from the get go because everyone knew who was in charge and Peter could be a leader in love without having to exert authority but he took charge when needed such that he was the one to end the debate. James summed it up  and said how he was planning on dealing with it in his jurisdiction makes much more sense. Why would Jesus go through the bother of setting the stage for his talk with Peter. Trapsing all the way to Caesarea Phillipi where there was/is a huge rock formation. Not just calling Simon the Rock but changing his name to Cephas [Rock] as testified in many Scripture passages-[BTW a name never used before] Otherwise it is indeed a mighty strange action on the part of Jesus, the God man, to honor Peter just so he could be first in line for processions and the buffet when Jesus  condemned such behavior in the pharisees. And why would it depend on his being faithful when his revelation was from God not from flesh and blood indicating that future revelation from God was likely too.

Jesus remembered to replace the twelve tribes with twelve apostles. Isn't it more likely that Jesus had thought ahead, so to speak, and set the Apostles in charge as bishops and he didn't forget to put someone in Moses' seat? Do the known facts refute my scenario ? No,  and my scenario is more likely.   
Did you just pull all this out of your hat?
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #446 on: May 31, 2008, 01:19:27 PM »

Peter was soooooo much in charge he didn't need to show it...
ROFL!
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,166


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #447 on: May 31, 2008, 01:23:03 PM »

This is the party line. I heard it repeated not long ago on an EWTN show. James was in charge during that council not Peter, the records are clear. Therefore, Rome needs to come up with a rationalization since the historical record goes against them . Apparently the excuse is that Peter was soooooo much in charge he didn't need to show it... or some variation on that theme.
Just for the sake of discussion, would you care to show us this historical record.  I agree with you, but I would just like our friend skippy to see exactly what he's up against.
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,798


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #448 on: May 31, 2008, 01:43:41 PM »

Just for the sake of discussion, would you care to show us this historical record.  I agree with you, but I would just like our friend skippy to see exactly what he's up against.

Here is a good summary I found on  the Orthophotos page:

 The Apostolic Council in Jerusalem.

When Christianity had spread throughout the known world and multitudes of pagans began to accept the Christian faith, some Christians were troubled. Christians of Jewish background held that Christians from pagan religions had to strictly observe the rituals of the Law of Moses. As a prerequisite, it should be necessary to turn them first to the Jewish faith because otherwise they could not be saved. This led to heated disagreements among the Christians.

No single apostle was able to resolve such an important question alone. It was determined by the holy apostles together with the presbyters or priests in harmony with the commandments of Christ (cf. Matt. 18:17) to convene the first Apostolic Council in Jerusalem in the year 51 A.D.

After long discussions, the issue was settled by the words of the Apostle Peter. He arose and said that the Lord having elected him in the early days to preach to the gentiles did not make any distinction between Jews and gentiles but to all gave the Holy Spirit; and therefore, Christians converted from pagan religions did not have to keep the rituals of the law of Moses. "We believe," the Apostle finished his speech, "that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ."

The speech of the Apostle Peter created a deep impression and was then strengthened still more after the Apostles Paul and Barnabas related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

After this, the Apostle James, the "brother of the Lord," arose to address those present at the council. The last word belonged to him as to bishop of the Jerusalem Church and to president of the council (first among equals). His opinions were furthermore important because he himself was a strict adherent of the Law and received for this not only from Christians but also from Jews themselves the epithet "righteous." Honour was accorded him by his position in the Church, first bishop of Jerusalem, placed there by the Lord Himself. St. James led a strict ascetic life, and he wore a gold name plate which was worn only by the chief priests. He spent whole hours alone in the Temple praying for his people. In Jerusalem, he was honoured and respected by the people.

St. James approved the opinion of the Apostle Peter. He showed that it was in agreement with prophecy (Amos 9:11-12) and consequently with divine providence. He proposed, "we should not trouble those of the gentiles, who turn to God, with keeping the rituals of the Law of Moses; but they must refrain from idol worship, from fornication, and from things strangled and blood. They should not do to others what they do not want done to themselves."

This proposal of the Apostle James was accepted by the apostles, presbyters, and the whole Council unanimously as a resolution of the Council. It was made known to all Christians in a Council decree, which began with the words, "It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..."

Thus the Apostolic Council showed Christians that the decree of the Council, in agreement with the word of the Lord (John 16:13;14:16), is established by the Holy Spirit. This letter of the Apostolic Council brought great joy and comfort to the Christians.

Note: See Acts of the Apostles 15:1-35.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,166


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #449 on: May 31, 2008, 02:01:55 PM »

^ Can you give us a link to this?


Here it is:  http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/LG/council.shtml
« Last Edit: May 31, 2008, 02:06:05 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Tags: St. Peter ecclesiology Petrine Primacy Pope Troll Primacy of Peter Supremacy of Peter 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.147 seconds with 72 queries.