It would seem like the time will come when man will colonize another planet besides earth. Is it possible? Sure. Is it probable? Well, Scriptures kind of teaches us that we are pretty much stuck on this planet until the end. But, what if man does settle a civilization on Mars, let's say? What then of the Holy Scriptures? If, as sci-fi writers preach, our earth were destroyed and our descendant population forgets that their ancestors believed in Christ, would the Scriptures then have to be rewritten or ammended?

It's a longshot, I know. Maybe? this is something those sci-fi authors need reminding of when they write about far off planets and earthling reminants.

.....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004

Answers

Some think that we were left behind on this planet from another. I do wonder if we are basically stuck here until the end.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.

The moral lessons of CHrist wll be relevant no matter what planet we are on, and Christ's return will happen before this world is desotryed, concumed by the sun, or blown up by evil alein hordes.

Prpphecy tells that Jesus will return to Jerusalem, so shall it be, this doesnt say that all humanity will be on earth at the time, though I beelive the prophexy will be ulfilled before the mass colinisaiton of the great Cancer is accomplished, and man reaches the distant stars unknown, bu thats jyst my guess.

Noentheless, whrever man settles, scripture will be relevant, and the faith will live and thrive. worry not, for the Bible will be kept, and read, and learned form, and faith on our Lord shall persist, for did he not say, the gates of Hell shall not prevail? How much less a simple move to another planet will have an effect that stalworth attakcs have yeilded.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 30, 2004.

I bet Zarove has put some thought into this already.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 30, 2004.

I must have posted at the same time you did Zarove.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 30, 2004.

For some, their theology would be re-written.

Jehovah's witnesses think our paradise is here. Only 144,000 will make it to Heaven.

People like Catholics and Protestants who believe we die for disobeying God here on Earth will have to come up with a different solution once we are in another planet. There will be no snake (devil) to accuse of our problems anymore.

What if we live longer or shorter lives? Then Jews cannot longer say our life is 70-120 years. What about the Sabbat?(Sunday for Christians)....

These are earthly creations.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.

Calendric dates can be maintianed artificially, Jehocva's witnesses are just wierd, we have a set lifespan because of Genetics, not environmwent, and I doutb anythign else woild change.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 30, 2004.

Ah! but Zarove. One day on Jupiter is not the same as one day on earth. Revolutions and rotations and orbits, oh my! Let's consider gravitational forces on different planets. We could walk on water if that planet exerts less gravitational pull on us. We'd be like Superman flying through the sky. The indigenous crowd might even call us divine or something. Eventually, our super strength would even out and we would function just like its inhabitants. That's if there are other inhabitants.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.

Now your just entering the realm of fantasey... we will never be able to fly unless their is little to no gravity to speak of, and if that's the case, then the Inhabitants of this strange asteroidal odt ( Cant be a planet, too small) woudl possess innately the same abiity. I mean, what holds them on the ground if we are so free?

The laws of Physics will remain constant for the inahbitants of each new world and for us, just as the laws remain constant throuhgout the knwon Universe.

as for the lenght of days, well, " 1000 years is as a day" coems to mind...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 30, 2004.

The laws of physics should remain constant ( I think about Jesus walking on water right about now). Well, this is exactly why the astronauts went bouncing around on the moon--1/6 the weight. But, are you saying that if intelligent life exists, it must exist in the same proportions as earthlings? Do you think that all solar systems are standardized?

I think about those deep sea bottom dwellers that collapse on their own mass because they cannot support themselves above the sea level. Imagine a Martian or Jovian being strolling around earth. It would be like humans bouncing around the moon's terrain. Fantasy? Well, "science fiction" is about telling stories that stick to physics. "Fantasy" stories break the laws of physics, which allows Capt. Kirk and his crew to travel at velocities exceeding the speed of light--impossible.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.

The colonist that first arrives on the moon, let's say, has the ability to jump far and throw far. That's because he is conditioned to manuever around the earth's gravitational pull. The moon's gravity is less (I think 1/6th that of the earth's). This means that the colonist has super muscular conditioning for the moon's everyday demands. As time passes, the colonist will atrophy unless he keeps conditioning his body for that super human ability on the moon. Swartzeneggar comes to mind--the early years. The olympic atheletes have that superiority over the typical Sunday morning wanabe athelete. Now, the Mooney (moon dweller since birth) would not posses this super strength that would allow him to hurl himself to distances equal to the new colonist. He has been conditioned by his environment since birth. Eventually, both the colonist and the Mooney will have equal abilities, as the colonist will lose his super strenght over time.

That's my thought experiment and I'm sticking with it. Hey! I could actually be correct.

.....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.

The laws of physics should remain constant ( I think about Jesus walking on water right about now).

{tHAT WAS A mIRACLE, NOT SUBJECT TOT HE NORMAL LAWS AS WE KNOW AND UNDERSTANMD THEM.}-Zarove

Well, this is exactly why the astronauts went bouncing around on the moon--1/6 the weight.

{Yes, and if moon life existed, it, too, woidl bounce about just liek the astronauts, or have evovled so that it coidl better live on the Lunar surface. either way, the Moon life woiud;l not have been walkign around on the moon just like we walk around on the earth, and hten saw Humans bouncing high off the ground and marvleed. They woudl have been able to do it for a logn time, an because their native, they woidl be better at it.}-Zarove

But, are you saying that if intelligent life exists, it must exist in the same proportions as earthlings? Do you think that all solar systems are standardized?

{ThaT'S not what I said, rod. I said their is no known reason why, if we coidl fly due to less gravity on a "planet", that the inhabitants woidl be earthbound, so to speak. See, if thir was so little gravity, then either the creatures woudl have the same ability of flight as we woudl jave, thus not thinkign of us as divine, or else they would be so incredibely dence as to attract and crush us tt heir bodies if we get too close, thus not seeign us as divine.

The fact is, if they had anythign resemblign normal mass for a livign creature, they wudl ajve the same abilityies we do, and because its their home environment, they woidl ahev developed to live in it far, far better than we are capale of the same and woidl be better at it, just as we woidl be better in our home environment.}- Zarove

I think about those deep sea bottom dwellers that collapse on their own mass because they cannot support themselves above the sea level.

{But at the same time they are subject tot he same laws of physics, thereofre, if they can swim, then so can we, beneith the water, unless we ar eutterly incapable of surviving at the spacific deapths htye survuve at. Thats what your missing here.}-Zarove

Imagine a Martian or Jovian being strolling around earth. It would be like humans bouncing around the moon's terrain.

{No, see, if from Jupiter, they woidl be so use to more gravity that our earth grVITY WOIDL BE NOTHIGN TO THEM, BUT THE EFFECTS GRAVITY HAS ON HYSICAL OBJECTS WOUDLR EMAIN THE SAME, SO IT WOUDLT BE LIKE men ont he moon, sicne earth gravity wont work that way. As for Mars, it actually has less gravity than earth, so they woidl find it more difficult to walk thaan we woiudl on MArs.}-Zarove

Fantasy? Well, "science fiction" is about telling stories that stick to physics.

{Not always, sone Sci-Fi has incredibley bad physics.}-Zarove

"Fantasy" stories break the laws of physics, which allows Capt. Kirk and his crew to travel at velocities exceeding the speed of light-- impossible.

{Actuall their are ways to theoreticlaly cheat the system, and Kirk uses oen fo the proposed ways, he warps space-time around his ship, so rather than the Enterprise moving, the space moves around the ship.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 30, 2004.

Yes, the laws of physic should remain constant. I did mention Jesus walking on water in order to spark a contradiction of those laws--a miracle. But, if Capt. Kirk can bend and manipulate space--and still obey the laws of physics--then we can only suggest that Jesus did the same. Therefore, the laws of physics were not broken, but followed. That would blow the miracle clean out of the water. I tend to believe that Jesus performed a miracle and didn't obey the laws of physics. So, how far can warping space be pushed until it accelerates beyond the speed of light? I mean; we're talking about instantaneously moving from point A to point B. Is that possible?

Here is another mental experiment:

The ability to exist in two places at one time via warped space and time (light speed is a constant, of course).

If a person can move from point A to point B, that is half the battle. The observer sees the person at intermitten intervals. Now, accelerate the moving person to a velocity that produces the illusion that observer fails to see the interval inwhich the traveler is not present. The oberver only sees that the traveler is present. Or, of course, he could see that the traveler never appears, but is there intermittenly. I would imagine that, because the traveler cannot exceed the speed of light, the oberver will always see when the traveler is there. So, the traveler will be seen at point A and B, seemingly, at the same time. The only way for the traveler to achieve such a feat is by the warping of space and time. How one would be able to warp things.......who knows?

How can God be everywhere at the same time? Of course, we cannot see the image of God. We can see His creation.

Zarove did you get my second post about the "Mooney" scenario

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.

Yes, the laws of physic should remain constant. I did mention Jesus walking on water in order to spark a contradiction of those laws--a miracle. But, if Capt. Kirk can bend and manipulate space--and still obey the laws of physics--then we can only suggest that Jesus did the same.

{Then Jesus dint perform a miracle, because we live in different states and yet comunicate near instantly over the internet...

Their is a difference between warp speed, if possible, and what Jesus did. what Jesus did was mechaniclaly impossible for a man, whereas what Jim Kirk and the crew of the USS Enterpreise will do ( Future, remmeber) is perfeclty within the bounds of nature and the natural order, it just employs tehcnologhy we havent developed yet.}- Zarove

Therefore, the laws of physics were not broken, but followed. That would blow the miracle clean out of the water.

{See above. Their is a difference ebtween discoverign a physical principle that allows us to accelerate beyong the normal limits of travel, and performign a supernatural miracle. No oen in Star Trek thinks Scotty is a pprophey and that tis magic or miraculous, tis all machines and principles.}-Zarove

I tend to believe that Jesus performed a miracle and didn't obey the laws of physics. So, how far can warping space be pushed until it accelerates beyond the speed of light? I mean; we're talking about instantaneously moving from point A to point B. Is that possible? Here is another mental experiment:

{ OK, where to begin... first off, warp speed isnt onstantaneous. it still took Kirk and crew time to get form poitn A to poritnt B. They coidln just flip ont he warp engine and be at their destination. in fact, they cudl go at different arp speeds, such as warp 1 or warp 2, or warp 5. Hence the famous term " take us to warp factor 8". As to how far it can go before becomig miraculous, I dotn knwo if it can be done, its just a theoretical posisbility at the moment, but I am guessign that that upper limit is still not miraculous.}

The ability to exist in two places at one time via warped space and time (light speed is a constant, of course).

{This is assumign that warp speed means instantaneous transit form poitn A to poitn B, which is false. it also assumes that instantaneous transit between two poitns is identical to bilocation, whcih is also false.}-Zarove

If a person can move from point A to point B, that is half the battle. The observer sees the person at intermitten intervals. Now, accelerate the moving person to a velocity that produces the illusion that observer fails to see the interval inwhich the traveler is not present. The oberver only sees that the traveler is present. Or, of course, he could see that the traveler never appears, but is there intermittenly. I would imagine that, because the traveler cannot exceed the speed of light, the oberver will always see when the traveler is there. So, the traveler will be seen at point A and B, seemingly, at the same time.

{What your describign is an optical illusion, NOT actual bilocation.}- Zarove

The only way for the traveler to achieve such a feat is by the warping of space and time. How one would be able to warp things.......who knows?

{Not relaly, I can accomplish this now given enough speed and direction, and positionign you at the correct angle on a seperate movign object...its still only an illusion, and not acutal Bilocation.}-Zarove

How can God be everywhere at the same time? Of course, we cannot see the image of God. We can see His creation.

{ God is Omnicient, imagien God beign like a blanket of energy permeatign the whole of creaiton, thats how...}-Zarove

Zarove did you get my second post about the "Mooney" scenario

{After I posted a rpely tot he first, however, tis irrelevant since I soemwhat agree, but thi doesnt negate native life that evlved their...Assumig evolution is even right...}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 30, 2004.

{No, see, if from Jupiter, they woidl be so use to more gravity that our earth grVITY WOIDL BE NOTHIGN TO THEM, BUT THE EFFECTS GRAVITY HAS ON HYSICAL OBJECTS WOUDLR EMAIN THE SAME, SO IT WOUDLT BE LIKE men ont he moon, sicne earth gravity wont work that way. As for Mars, it actually has less gravity than earth, so they woidl find it more difficult to walk thaan we woiudl on MArs.}-Zarove

Yes, I agree. We can take an Earthling, Jovian, and Martian. Take them to the highest bridge and drop them off the bridge. Let's get rid of any friction factors; they would hit the ground at the same time. Now, let's take the dynamic trio and have them run a race. Again, take away the friction factor. Who will win the race? Of cource, the winner will be the one with the greater resistance to the gravitational pull--The Jovian. Why? The Jovian has better conditioning in relation to the environmental upbringing of the other two. The Martian should come in last, but we all know that the Earthling would be scared to death being near these two aliens; he would have run the opposite direction.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.

{Not relaly, I can accomplish this now given enough speed and direction, and positionign you at the correct angle on a seperate movign object...its still only an illusion, and not acutal Bilocation.}-Zarove

Of course, I agree. It would only "seem" like "bilocation". But, to the observer, who doesn't know what is actually happening, would interpret it as "Omniscience". Take this internet phenomena (as you've pointed out). Abraham would get really amazed by the speed and connectivety of information and images, let's not forget sound. It would take some time to bring him up to speed about this technology. Let's not even consider Nostradamus; he'd have a field day, "See! I told you you'd be looking into the glass boxes!"

.....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.

{ God is Omnicient, imagien God beign like a blanket of energy permeatign the whole of creaiton, thats how...}-Zarove

I think Einstein got a glimpse of God in his cosmological equation constant. Einstein was trying to figure out God and surmised the idea that there is an energy constant that keeps the universe in order. He was inches away from claiming/proving God as the order keeper.

..........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.

I think this is one of the strangest threads. I just wish I had scripture to prove it.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.

That is what Rod is trying to tell you, Luke.

There will be new Scriptures written for the New Place.

Whatever works on Earth may not work someplace else.

One part of Rod might still be catholic, the other tries to make sense of everything he has been taught.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.

Some claim the the Scriptures reveal everything. I think that the Scriptures reveal everything we need to know, but it doesn't reveal everything. Some say that God will not reveal everything to us, even in Heaven.

But, what if man does colonize other planets? How will the Scriptures be interpreted then?(Again, my hunch is that man may never reach the planets as a dwelling place.)

.........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 01, 2004.

I like this thread.

Here's a few more questions it brings to mind.

If there is "intelligent" (I define this as body and spirit) life out there, it had to have been created by God and they must be our brothers and sisters in some sense (or maybe cousins is more appropriate).

God would love them too.

If Christ died for all, does that mean he died for all intelligent life in the universe, or just all humans?

If there is intelligent life out there, would God have provided them with their own Scriptures and took their form to become their Saviour?

I'm of the opinion that if we do meet intelligent life that Christians should evangelize them too. Imagine that, your a missionary being sent to Planet X to spread the Good News. That is, if you believe that Christ died for eveyone, including aliens.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 01, 2004.

Or, if the aliens are truly advanced, they might be even more advanced spiritually than any of us could imagine.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 01, 2004.

Hi Andy,

Let's say that intelligent life was found today in a far off planet. The very next day, theologians would re-read Genesis and fill in the blanks where Caine marries the mysterious woman who suddenly appears from nowhere. "Yes, God did also create other beings, but didn't feel it necessary to mention it in detail to us", say the theologians; I can hear them now.

My take is that Adam and Eve were the beginnings of "The Chosen People". How else can we explain those humans outside the Garden in the first place?

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 01, 2004.

I see your point rod, and it makes sense. I've also heard that the other people were the offspring of Adam and Eve that weren't specifically named in Scripture.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 01, 2004.

Why do we assume that Adam and eve's sin effects the Aleins as origional sin int he fits place?

If the aleins never commited the origional act of disobedeince, then they woudnt need a saviour since they woidl tehcniclaly be sinless, liek animals, no mater how intellegent they are.

Only if they snned wold God need to rectify their sins.

And he woidl ahve to rectify it on their own basis.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 01, 2004.

Well, those inside the Garden were saved. Those who were cast out were in sin. That pretty much includes the rest of creation-- aliens.

That's if aliens do exist.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 01, 2004.

No, only Humans sin, animals dotn, regardles of their location. sin may effect all fo creaiton, btu it doesnt mean all animal life is sinful.This includes Aleins.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 01, 2004.

Well, God did destroy some of his creation. Of course, animals don't sin. But, some animals are not meant to exist. They exist because of some evil cause and effect.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 01, 2004.

Theoretically Zarove, if aliens are spiritual as well as physical beings like humans, they would be in the same state of innocence that Adam and Eve were in before they sinned. If so, wouldn't the aliens have a special relationship with God? I know it sounds like crazy talk.

Hey, maybe we're paving the way for the theology of starfaring humans. Couldn't we get some funding from NASA or something?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 01, 2004.

The prpoblem is Origional sin passes on to all humanity. Aleins woidl only ne sinners in he need of redemption if they also violated Gods will and law as Adam and eve did, but are free from Adam and eve's sins.

However, no matter where Himans go, they wil be tianted by origional sin, since they are decended form the spiritually corrupt Humans from earht who decended from Noah whop in turn decended from Adam and eve.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 01, 2004.

I gave NASA a call; I got the wrong number.

I tried again; I got a busy signal.

I called back; they said they would get back with me.

I'm still waiting...

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 16, 2004.

Zarove wrote, "The prpoblem is Origional sin passes on to all humanity."

No, this is not true... Original sin does "not" pass to anyone...

Can an infant sin???

Certainly not...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 21, 2004.

A more accurate statement would be ... "the EFFECTS of original sin have been passed on to all humanity". And that fact is plainly stated in the Bible.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 22, 2004.

"I think this is one of the strangest threads. I just wish I had scripture to prove it."

The above statement proves the ineptitude of a sola scriptura mind-set.

-- Joseph (jtg878@hotmail.com), November 22, 2004.

I wrote, "Can an infant sin??? Certainly not..."

To which Paul replied, "A more accurate statement would be ... "the EFFECTS of original sin have been passed on to all humanity". And that fact is plainly stated in the Bible."

Please just answer the question... Can an infant sin??? Yes or no?

We all suffer the consequences of Adam's sin - death however, there is no proof that we are all stained with this "original sin" as stated by the Catholic Church. This is merely an assertion by them and there is no proof at all to back it up... It is interesting to note that the Jews and Israelites and all of the patriarchs in the OT did not believe they were stained with "original sin".

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 22, 2004.

No, an infant cannot sin, however, they can be affected by the sin, thus, origioal sin, if undersood to b the ramification of sin, still hols fast tothem.

Likewise, no Bible verse says Adam and edve where ever immortal, suhc is speculation.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 22, 2004.

"there is no proof that we are all stained with this "original sin" as stated by the Catholic Church"

A: Actually the fact that the Catholic Church teaches it is the ONLY means Christ gave us for proving the authenticity and accuracy of doctrine. Whatsoever His Church binds on earth is bound in heaven. He who listens to His Church listens to Him. The Holy Spirit guides His Church to all truth. I realize these verses are not on the list of accepted Protestant verses, but they are still the Word of God.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 22, 2004.

"A: Actually the fact that the Catholic Church teaches it is the ONLY means Christ gave us for proving the authenticity and accuracy of doctrine."

This is merely a Catholic assertion that has no basis in the truth.

"Whatsoever His Church binds on earth is bound in heaven."

This is another assertion of the Catholic Church with no proof.

"He who listens to His Church listens to Him."

This is yet another assertion of the Catholic Church that is not taught in God's word...

"The Holy Spirit guides His Church to all truth."

Yet again another assertion that is not the truth... The Holy Spirit guided the Apostles into all truth, not the church...

"I realize these verses are not on the list of accepted Protestant verses, but they are still the Word of God."

Please quote these verses Paul so we can see if you are indeed telling the truth...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 24, 2004.

Matt 16:19; Matt 18:18; Luke 10:16; John 16:13

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 24, 2004.

"I think this is one of the strangest threads. I just wish I had scripture to prove it."

The above statement proves the ineptitude of a sola scriptura mind- set. -- Joseph

And the above statement proves the intelligence of wit.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 24, 2004.

Paul wrote, "Matt 16:19 and Matt 18:18"

This scripture states: "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

The same binding and loosing power was given to "all" of the Apostles in Matthew 18:18 which states, "Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

There is no mention of the Catholic Church nor their Pope in these passages...

Paul wrote, "Luke 10:16"

This scripture states, "He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me."

This scripture was written concerning the Apostles of Christ, not the church...

Paul wrote, "John 16:13"

This scripture states, "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come."

This was written to the Apostles of Christ, not to the church...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 28, 2004.

The Apostles of Christ were clearly the first bishops of the Church Christ founded. Therefore any instructions given to them and any powers bestowed upon them were given to them as spritual leaders of the Church, for the benefit not of themselves, but of the Church over which they presided. Except as leaders of the Church, the Apostles had no authority and in fact no identity. Just as ordinary Christians have no real identity except as members of the Church, subject to Apostolic authority.

The powers of binding and loosing were indeed bestowed upon the Bishops of the Church collectively, but only in submission to the authority of the keeper of the keys to the Kingdom, who was singularly given this power along with the keys, BEFORE the other bishops were allowed to share in this power, without the keys (authority) given to Simon Peter alone.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 28, 2004.

"The powers of binding and loosing were indeed bestowed upon the Bishops of the Church collectively, but only in submission to the authority of the keeper of the keys to the Kingdom, who was singularly given this power along with the keys, BEFORE the other bishops were allowed to share in this power, without the keys (authority) given to Simon Peter alone."

This is merely a Catholic assertion that has no basis in the truth of God's word. All the Apostles had the same authority to "bind and loose" and just because the text states that Peter was given the "keys" does not mean he held any higher office than any of the other Apostles. To claim anything different is going beyond what has been written in God's word. Catholics "claim" that Peter was the first Pope however this is not true...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 29, 2004.

"just because the text states that Peter was given the "keys" does not mean he held any higher office than any of the other Apostles"

A: On the contrary Kevin,that is exactly what it means. Jesus used this image of the keys as an analogy, referring to a common practice of the time which all the Apostles were familiar with. When the master of a household bestowed the keys to his household upon one of his servants, that act designated that servant as chief steward of the household. In fact, the designated servant would commonly wear the keys upon his shoulder as a symbol of his position and status. That servant had authority over all the other servants of the household, and in the absence of the master he administrated the master's household, not by his own authority but by the authority of the master himself, who had deligated it to him. A beautiful analogy, the symbolism of which was immediately apparent to the Apostles, and is still obvious today to anyone who seeks the truth and has sufficient knowledge of scripture to recognize the truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 30, 2004.

"A: On the contrary Kevin,that is exactly what it means. Jesus used this image of the keys as an analogy, referring to a common practice of the time which all the Apostles were familiar with. When the master of a household bestowed the keys to his household upon one of his servants, that act designated that servant as chief steward of the household. In fact, the designated servant would commonly wear the keys upon his shoulder as a symbol of his position and status. That servant had authority over all the other servants of the household, and in the absence of the master he administrated the master's household, not by his own authority but by the authority of the master himself, who had deligated it to him. A beautiful analogy, the symbolism of which was immediately apparent to the Apostles, and is still obvious today to anyone who seeks the truth and has sufficient knowledge of scripture to recognize the truth."

Peter was given the "keys" to "bind and loose" as all the other apostles were given the authority to "bind and loose"... It was not necessary for Jesus to restate to the other apostles they have the "keys" for they had the exact same power to "bind and loose" which the keys gave to Peter. Peter was never above any of the other apostles and I challenge you to prove otherwise...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 30, 2004.

Kevin,

In the Bible, a key is used as a symbol of superintendence, an emblem of power and authority. To "bind" in rabbinical language is to forbid, to "loose" is to permit. These are not necessarily equivalent ideas.

Scripture shows that Our Lord said these words only to Peter: “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”

And He spoke these words to all the apostles: “whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. “

It’s important that Christ gave the power “to bind” and “to loose” to the apostles as a group (Mt 18:17-20) after telling Peter he would give him the “keys” (i.e., authority). I don’t think this is coincidence. First Christ gives Peter the authority with the keys and the power to bind and to loose. Later he tells the rest of the apostles (along with Peter) that “whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.”

This comes between his statements “And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican” and “Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning anything whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven.“ Only in union with the “superintendent” (i.e., the keyholder) can the apostles bind and loose. Christ would build upon Peter the Rock by joining the rest of the apostles to the one who was chosen to bear the keys. They would not assume the same authority, but joined with Peter the Rock, they would have the same power to bind and to loose. Just my humble opinion on those passages.

So how do I see this proven out in Scripture? Scripture shows that Peter is preeminent among the apostles the following way. First, Peter is mentioned by name more than any other apostle in Scripture. Also, whenever the apostles are listed as a group, Peter is listed first. At other times, Scripture says “Peter and the others.” Finally, Peter was the only apostle personally renamed by Christ. There is a reason for all this.

Here are other places in Scripture where Our Lord singles out Peter or where Peter took on a leadership role among the apostles.

Mt 14:25-33 (Peter speaks first to the Lord and Jesus calls Peter out of the boat to walk on water),

Jn 20:1-6 (John stops and waits for Peter to enter the tomb first after the Resurrection),

Mk 16:7 (the angel says to the women to tell “his disciples and Peter” about the Resurrection),

Lk 22:31-32 (Jesus prays that Peter’s faith will not fail and tells him to strengthen the others)

Jn 21:15-19 (Jesus asks Peter to feed his sheep)

Acts 1:13-26 (Peter takes the lead on choosing a replacement for Judas)

Acts 2:14-41 (Peter is the first to preach after Pentecost and 3000 are added to the church through his preaching)

Acts 3:1-10 (Of the apostles, Peter is the first to perform a miracle)

Acts 4:1-12 (Peter is the one who speaks to the High Priest after he and John are captured)

Acts 10:9-16 (Peter receives the revelation from God that the Gospel is to be preached to the Gentiles)

Acts 11:18 and 15:5-12 (Peter tells the rest of the church in Jerusalem where the host James, and the other apostles and “elders” agreed that it would be binding on the whole church),

Acts 12:5-11 (Peter is saved by an angel from prison after “prayer was made without ceasing by the church unto God" for him)

Gal 1:18 (Paul makes a point of going to see Peter).

Scripture shows Peter’s preeminence among the apostles, especially in Acts Chapters 1-10. At the very least, it shows that he was first among equals.

Now whether that is enough proof for you to accept that Peter had more authority than any of the other apostles, I guess you'll be the judge of that.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 02, 2004.

"So how do I see this proven out in Scripture? Scripture shows that Peter is preeminent among the apostles the following way. First, Peter is mentioned by name more than any other apostle in Scripture."

This is "not" true...

Andy, you have been misled...

I did a name search on Peter and Cephas and Paul and Saul, and this was what I came up with:

Peter - 158 Cephas - 6

Paul - 156 Saul - 26

So, this has Paul and Saul mentioned more times than that of Peter so your statement, "Peter is mentioned by name more than any other apostle in Scripture" is NOT the truth according to the word of God.

"Also, whenever the apostles are listed as a group, Peter is listed first."

Not according to Galatians 2:9 which states, "and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised."

"At other times, Scripture says ?Peter and the others."

It does not matter whether or nor Peter is mentioned first, or in the middle, or last... This does not mean that Peter has any primacy over any of the other apostles...

"Finally, Peter was the only apostle personally renamed by Christ. There is a reason for all this."

This also does not prove anything...

"Here are other places in Scripture where Our Lord singles out Peter or where Peter took on a leadership role among the apostles."

Let's take a look at these scripture to see if they really mean anything...

"Mt 14:25-33 (Peter speaks first to the Lord and Jesus calls Peter out of the boat to walk on water),"

This does not mean a thing... Peter's faith was lacking...

"Jn 20:1-6 (John stops and waits for Peter to enter the tomb first after the Resurrection),"

If you will read John 20:4-5, John did not want to go into the tomb... Just because Peter went into the tomb first, does not mean a thing... John looked into the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying there, so there was no need for him to go in...

"Mk 16:7 (the angel says to the women to tell ?his disciples and Peter? about the Resurrection),"

Please note His "disciples" were mentioned before Peter...

"Lk 22:31-32 (Jesus prays that Peter?s faith will not fail and tells him to strengthen the others)"

This does not mean that Peter has any "primacy" over the other apostles...

"Jn 21:15-19 (Jesus asks Peter to feed his sheep)"

Because Peter denied Him three times... How many times did Jesus ask Peter if he loved Him??? (hint - 3 which is exactly the number of times that Peter denied Him)...

"Acts 1:13-26 (Peter takes the lead on choosing a replacement for Judas)"

If Peter held the "primacy" over the other apostles, he would have chosen Judas replacement... At the Jerusalem council, Peter did not have the primacy as it was James that judged... (see Acts 15:19)...

"Acts 2:14-41 (Peter is the first to preach after Pentecost and 3000 are added to the church through his preaching)"

Peter was only an apostle to the Jews... Paul was the apostle for the Gentiles... Galatians 2:6-9 states, "6 But from those who seemed to be something--whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man--for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 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 8(for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles),"

"Acts 3:1-10 (Of the apostles, Peter is the first to perform a miracle)"

This also does not prove a thing... All of the apostles had this power...

"Acts 4:1-12 (Peter is the one who speaks to the High Priest after he and John are captured)"

This also does not prove that Peter had any "primacy"...

"Acts 10:9-16 (Peter receives the revelation from God that the Gospel is to be preached to the Gentiles)"

This is also "no" proof that Peter had any primacy...

"Acts 11:18 and 15:5-12 (Peter tells the rest of the church in Jerusalem where the host James, and the other apostles and ?elders? agreed that it would be binding on the whole church),"

Peter spoke... and??? Just because Peter spoke, does not mean that he had any "primacy" over any of the other apostles... Paul also spoke... among others...

"Acts 12:5-11 (Peter is saved by an angel from prison after ?prayer was made without ceasing by the church unto God" for him)"

This also does not prove anything...

"Gal 1:18 (Paul makes a point of going to see Peter)."

Because he was one of the bishops over the church in Jerusalem...

"Scripture shows Peter?s preeminence among the apostles, especially in Acts Chapters 1-10. At the very least, it shows that he was first among equals."

No, it does nothing of the sort...

"Now whether that is enough proof for you to accept that Peter had more authority than any of the other apostles, I guess you'll be the judge of that."

The Bible does not promote Peter or any other man having any sort of "primacy" over any of the other apostles... This is nothing but a Catholic assertion that has no basis in the truth of God's word...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), December 04, 2004.

Kevin,

Jesus did give Peter the opportunity to make up for denying him three times. But look at the way He did it. "Feed my sheep", "tend my sheep", "feed my lambs" are direct references to Peter as a shepherd. This is not just a way to give Peter a chance to make up for denying Him three times. He's telling Peter to do something very important. Why did Christ say these words only to Peter?

Peter being listed first whenever all twelve of the apostles are listed by name is important. Judas is always listed last. There is a reason the Gospel writers chose to do this.

A name change in Scripture is also very important. Whenever God chooses someone for a special mission He changes their name. Think of Abraham (from Abram) and Israel (from Jacob).

Looks like we each read the same Scriptures and see something very different. Taken as a whole, I see evidence of Peter's primacy and special role among the Apostles as chosen by Christ. You see nothing. Where I see a special message about Peter the Holy Spirit is telling us in Scripture, you see nothing.

Oh well...

Thanks for correcting me on the number of times Peter is mentioned by name. I forgot to check on Saul. Had I been right on that, it probably wouldn't have helped to prove my point anyway. I appreciate you taking the time to reply to all my points.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 05, 2004.

"Jesus did give Peter the opportunity to make up for denying him three times. But look at the way He did it. "Feed my sheep", "tend my sheep", "feed my lambs" are direct references to Peter as a shepherd. This is not just a way to give Peter a chance to make up for denying Him three times. He's telling Peter to do something very important. Why did Christ say these words only to Peter?"

Because Peter was the "only" one who denied Him three times... This was Jesus way of restoring Peter...

"Peter being listed first whenever all twelve of the apostles are listed by name is important. Judas is always listed last. There is a reason the Gospel writers chose to do this."

How people are listed in Scripture does not make any difference except in the minds of Catholics... Was Paul an apostle of Christ??? Why wasn't Paul listed as one of the twelve???

"A name change in Scripture is also very important. Whenever God chooses someone for a special mission He changes their name. Think of Abraham (from Abram) and Israel (from Jacob)."

Okay, so Jesus changed Peter's name... big deal...

"Looks like we each read the same Scriptures and see something very different. Taken as a whole, I see evidence of Peter's primacy and special role among the Apostles as chosen by Christ."

This is only because you have been taught to believe this by the Catholic Church... Anyone reading these verses without any outside help will "not" see what you wrote above...

"You see nothing."

Without any outside help, everyone will see just as I see in these verses... "nothing"...

"Where I see a special message about Peter the Holy Spirit is telling us in Scripture, you see nothing."

Is God a respecter of persons??? According to you He is...

"Oh well..."

Exactly...

"Thanks for correcting me on the number of times Peter is mentioned by name. I forgot to check on Saul. Had I been right on that, it probably wouldn't have helped to prove my point anyway."

Your welcome... That is one point that you have been taught in error by the Catholic Church... I can assure you there are many more...

"I appreciate you taking the time to reply to all my points."

No problem...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), December 05, 2004.

Because Peter was the "only" one who denied Him three times... This was Jesus way of restoring Peter... - Kevin

He could have stopped after Peter replied yes when Jesus asked him whether Peter loved Him. The rest indicates Jesus sees Peter as a shepherd. He is telling him to go and tend Christ's flock.

Was Paul an apostle of Christ??? Why wasn't Paul listed as one of the twelve??? - Kevin

Because Paul didn't enter the picture until halfway through Acts. Besides he was never one of the "twelve". Matthias was chosen by lot to replace Judas Iscariot. I'm specifically referring to Mt 10:2-4, Mk 3:16-19, Lk 6:14-16, and Acts 1:13.

Okay, so Jesus changed Peter's name... big deal... - Kevin

Do you feel the same way about Abram's and Jacob's name changes?

This is only because you have been taught to believe this by the Catholic Church... Anyone reading these verses without any outside help will "not" see what you wrote above... - Kevin

I say anyone who hasn't already made up their mind about Peter will see that Peter wasn't just the typical apostle. Our Lord singled Peter out at times, for a reason. He used Old Testament imagery like a name change and giving Peter the keys to the kingdom. From my point of view you are ignoring the clear message of Scripture because you have already made up your mind about Peter. Maybe you've been taught to believe this by non-Catholics. I don't know your particular situation. I do see how the same goes for me too though.

Is God a respecter of persons??? According to you He is... - Kevin

I'm sorry, I don't see how God not being a "respector of persons" pertains to this discussion. I don't see how I'm saying that God is a "respector of persons". Would you elaborate a bit?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 05, 2004.

Andy, I think Kevin is referring to this passage:

Rom 2:6-15 (KJV)
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

However, I disagree with Kevin's interpretation of this that by choosing someone as a leader God would be a "respector of persons" or favoring someone. That would mean that the very act of choosing the twelve apostles, or John the Baptist, or any other OT prophet, Moses, or Abraham, that God was breaking His own rule.

Instead, this passage means that God does not show favoritism in offering salvation, which is the context of the passage. God is not racist, offering it to the Jews only, but also to the Gentiles - to the whole world.

God bless,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), December 05, 2004.

Thanks Emily. That clears things up for me.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 05, 2004.

"He could have stopped after Peter replied yes when Jesus asked him whether Peter loved Him. The rest indicates Jesus sees Peter as a shepherd. He is telling him to go and tend Christ's flock."

Peter denied Jesus three times, Jesus restored Peter three times... Peter was an apostle and also an elder in the church at Jerusalem.

"Because Paul didn't enter the picture until halfway through Acts. Besides he was never one of the "twelve". Matthias was chosen by lot to replace Judas Iscariot. I'm specifically referring to Mt 10:2-4, Mk 3:16-19, Lk 6:14-16, and Acts 1:13."

Nevertheless, Paul was an apostle...

"I say anyone who hasn't already made up their mind about Peter will see that Peter wasn't just the typical apostle."

This is your opinion, and you are entitled to it however, Peter never stated he had "primacy" over any of the other apostles... Don't you think that is strange especially since the Catholic Church gives him primacy over the other apostles??? Paul worked harded than Peter and he was not a "typical" apostle however, he also did not have "primacy" over any of the other apostles... Paul even stated he was not behind the other apostles when he stated in 2 Corinthians 12:11, "for in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing."

"Our Lord singled Peter out at times, for a reason. He used Old Testament imagery like a name change and giving Peter the keys to the kingdom."

Peter had the keys to "bind and loose"... The other apostles also had the "keys" to "bind and loose"... Just because the text doesn't say it, does not mean the other apostles didn't have the same keys as Peter...

"From my point of view you are ignoring the clear message of Scripture because you have already made up your mind about Peter."

That is your point of view and it has been biased by what the Catholic Church has taught you... Without any Catholic bias, you would not hold to the same beliefs as you have been taught erroneously by your Church...

"Maybe you've been taught to believe this by non-Catholics."

No, actually I learned this from reading God's word without an interpreter for myself and made up my own mind...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), December 05, 2004.

This is your opinion, and you are entitled to it however, Peter never stated he had "primacy" over any of the other apostles... Don't you think that is strange especially since the Catholic Church gives him primacy over the other apostles??? Paul worked harded than Peter and he was not a "typical" apostle however, he also did not have "primacy" over any of the other apostles... Paul even stated he was not behind the other apostles when he stated in 2 Corinthians 12:11, "for in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing."

Yes, both Peter and Paul were very humble despite their standing in the Church. Great models of Christian virtue. But who's to say who worked harder, Peter or Paul? They both gave everything they had for Christ and the Church. Just to be clear, the Church doesn't give Peter "primacy". Christ did.

On a side note, Scripture never says that Christ ever told Paul that he would give him either the "keys" or the power "to bind" and "to loose." Do you believe that Paul had the same authority as the other apostles, and why?

Just because the text doesn't say it, does not mean the other apostles didn't have the same keys as Peter...

Kevin, why is it okay for your interpretation of the "keys" that "just because the text doesn't say it, does not mean.." but when that same argument is used for other topics (such as Peter's primacy or infant baptism), we must see it explicitly written in Scripture?

No, actually I learned this from reading God's word without an interpreter for myself and made up my own mind...

After first doubting and then investigating the Catholic claim about Peter in God's Word, I also made up my own mind. I guess I should add that I believe the Holy Spirit made it up for me.

Your point regarding my potential Catholic bias is well taken and may even be true. But let's be totally honest. There are also anti- Catholic biases that prevent readers of Scripture from seeing the truth.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 05, 2004.

Let me clarify a question:

"On a side note, Scripture never says that Christ ever told Paul that he would give him either the "keys" or the power "to bind" and "to loose." Do you believe that Paul had the same authority as the other apostles, and why?"

The short answer is that Scripture tells us that Paul was an apostle. To this I agree. The real question is, did he have the same power "to bind" and "to loose" that Christ gave to all the other apostles? If he did, how and when did he receive this power? Same goes for Matthias. Just curious what you think.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 05, 2004.

The problem is Andy that Saint Paul founded the Gentile Church. The Gentile Church later became the Catholic Church. Later Orthodox Christians who identified Jesus with God Yahweh kept the name Catholic.

Those who denied Jesus was in the beginning were called Arians. They died out but reincarnated as Jehovah's Witnesses and Christadelphians.

They later subdivided into: Catholic (Roman, Greek,...), Monophosite (Coptic, Syriac, Armenian,Ethiopian...), Chalcedonian(Nestorian)..

The Catholics divided intpo Protestants and catholics.

From what you can see, there are no churches (Jewish) in Character founded by Jesus apostles left anymore. They were called Ebionites.

Paul received his apostleship from the Revelation on the Road to Damascus (see Acts).

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 06, 2004.

Elpidio

Not to open a "Pandora's Box" but what do you make of the differences between Pauline Christianity and say--- the position of James the Just's more Jewish view. Most today believe it was reconciled, perhaps mediated by Peter. I waver back and forth.

Rod seemed to reconcile it for me by something he posted a while back, but I can't help wondering how such liberalizing influences regarding "The Law" by Paul could sit well with the early Jewish Christians who were not prone to change a bit of it.

People to this day are very resistent to change in general let alone issues regarding proper religious belief and practice. Couldn't have been much different back then either. Early Christian communities had much to work out with each other.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), December 06, 2004.

The problem is Andy that Saint Paul founded the Gentile Church. - Elpidio

Why is that a "problem" Elpidio? Wasn't Peter the first one to take the Gospel to the Gentiles based on the revlation he received form God in Acts (see Cornelius)?

From what you can see, there are no churches (Jewish) in Character founded by Jesus apostles left anymore. - Elpidio

What do you mean Elpidio? Are you saying the Catholic Church is descended from the Gentile churches that Paul started and have no connection to the churches started by Peter, James, Andrew, and the others?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 06, 2004.

Andy

I believe there was much controvercy in the early Church among the first communities. THere had to have been because---look at how things are today. We still can't come to agreement.

James and Peter who were actual diciples and knew Jesus from the small world of Jerusalem versus Paul, a Roman citizen and world traveler who only met the spiritual Christ. THey (the Pillars) had to see things somewhat differently. THere were problems with circumcision as well as table fellowship. These seem small to us today as we have come so much further away from "The Law" which must have been immencely imprtant to Jesus and his followers. The question that is difficult to answer after 2000 years is how different were the visions, and how were they resolved.

We as Catholics accept the works of Ireneaus, Athenatius, Augustine, Aquinas etc. and the councils. But some do not, when not viewed through "faith glasses" some see it completely differently.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), December 07, 2004.

Andy and Jim,

Paul's Christianity can be properly be called Christianity since christianity is a Greek word.Not only was Antioch the place where the followers of Jesus were called Christians for the first time, but it was the mother of Gentile Christianity.Every trip of Paul started here. He made it his headquarters.

Paul makes that distiction quite clearly in Galatians. he specifically cites Jesus disciples as Jewish Messianites (that is , followers of Jesus who still see themselves as Jews). This encouter took place around 51 AD, more than 20 years after Jesus crucifixion. Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw thatthe gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;

Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

So if Paul is told emphatically to go to the Gentiles , that means Peter wasn't. Thus, as Romans ch. 16 testifies, Peter wasn't there. Which means the founder of gentile Christianity in Rome is Paul. So Paul is the first Pope of Rome, not Peter.

So Biblically, the Pope of Rome doesn't have the keys of Peter. The one who has them is the Patriarch of Antioch. Since the Church of Antioch got its start up from Peter, then they truly have the keys.Up until this day, that Church still exists. Now it is divided in 3 branches: one Catholic Orthodox(semi-independant), One Roman (dependant on the Pope) Catholic, one Independent.

i> Peter's Christianity can be can be more properly be called Ebionism. Ebionites means poor. They existed for a long time. They are even mentioned by the Church fathers.

Gal 2:10 Only [they would] that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

Galatians already exhibits Paul's understanding of Jesus in salvation history. This is later expanded in Romans. Jewish law and dietery laws won't save a person.

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Paul lived as a Jew, but he did not want to impose his religious background on the new converts. His way of thinking succeeded.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 07, 2004.

This is proof that Peter wasn't in Rome. The Jewish leaders heard about THE WAY, which they call a sect. They want to know more since they have not met a ringleader like Paul before.If Peter had been there, then, there was no need to listen to Paul.

Act 28:21 And they said unto him, We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came shewed or spake any harm of thee.

Act 28:22 But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 07, 2004.

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia acknkowledges that Ebiotes means poor.

The word Ebionites, or rather, more correctly, Ebionæans (Ebionaioi), is a transliteration of an Aramean word meaning "poor men". It first occurs in Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2, but without designation of meaning. Origen (C. Celsum, II, i; De Princ., IV, i, 22) and Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., III, xxvii) refer the name of these sectaries either to the poverty of their understanding, or to the poverty of the Law to which they clung, or to the poor opinions they held concerning Christ. This, however, is obviously not the historic origin of the name. Other writers, such as Tertullian (De Praescr., xxxiii; De Carne Chr., xiv, 18), Hippolytus (cfr. Pseudo- Tert., Adv. Haer., III, as reflecting Hippolytus's lost "Syntagma"), and Epiphanius (Haeres., xxx) derive the name of the sect from a certain Ebion, its supposed founder. Epiphanius even mentions the place of his birth, a hamlet called Cochabe in the district of Bashan, and relates that he travelled through Asia and even came to Rome. Of modern scholars Hilgenfeld has maintained the historical existence of this Ebion, mainly on the ground of some passages ascribed to Ebion by St. Jerome (Comm. in Gal., iii, 14) and by the author of a compilation of patristic texts against the Monothelites. But these passages are not likely to be genuine, and Ebion, otherwise unknown to history, is probably only an invention to account for the name Ebionites. The name may have been self-imposed by those who gladly claimed the beatitude of being poor in spirit, or who claimed to live after the pattern of the first Christians in Jerusalem .... The doctrines of this sect are said by Irenaeus to be like those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ; they clung to the observance of the Jewish Law; they regarded St. Paul as an apostate, and used only a Gospel according to St. Matthew (Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2; III, xxi, 2; IV, xxxiii, 4; V, i, 3). Their doctrines are similarly described by Hippolytus (Philos., VIII, xxii, X, xviii) and Tertullian (De carne Chr., xiv, 18), but their observance of the Law seems no longer so prominent a feature of their system as in the account given by Irenaeus. Origen is the first (C. Cels., V, lxi) to mark a distinction between two classes of Ebionites, a distinction which Eusebius also gives (Hist. Eccl., III, xxvii). Some Ebionites accept, but others reject, the virginal birth of Christ, though all reject His pre-existence and His Divinity. Those who accepted the virginal birth seem to have had more exalted views concerning Christ and, besides observing the Sabbath, to have kept the Sunday as a memorial of His Resurrection. The milder sort of Ebionites were probably fewer and less important than their stricter brethren, because the denial of the virgin birth was commonly attributed to all. (Origen, Hom. in Luc., xvii) St. Epiphanius calls the more heretical section Ebionites, and the more Catholic-minded, Nazarenes. But we do not know whence St. Epiphanius obtained his information or or how far it is reliable. It is very hazardous, therefore, to maintain, as is sometimes done, that the distinction between Nazarenes and Ebionites goes back to the earliest days of Christianity.

Besides these merely Judaistic Ebionites, there existed a later Gnostic development of the same heresy. These Ebionite Gnostics differed widely from the main schools of Gnosticism, in that they absolutely rejected any distinction between Jehovah the Demiurge, and the Supreme Good God.

Here is the early text on the Ebionites, according to Ireneus. Taken from New Advent, the Catholic Encylopedia.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103126.htm Adversus Haereses (Book I, Chapter 26) BY ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS

Doctrines of Cerinthus, the Ebionites, and Nicolaitanes

1. Cerinthus, again, a man who was educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by the primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him, and at a distance from that Principality who is supreme over the universe, and ignorant of him who is above all. He represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men. Moreover, after his baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being.

2. Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.

3. The Nicolaitanes are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these men is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John, [when they are represented] as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practise adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols. Wherefore the Word has also spoken of them thus: "But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate."

Ireneus Against Heresies

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 07, 2004.

Hi Jim,

The question that is difficult to answer after 2000 years is how different were the visions, and how were they resolved. - Jim

My impression has always been that it was resolved in Acts 15 at the “Council of Jerusalem.” But I do see your point that even then, there was still controversy over the Law and Gentiles. Even Paul had Timothy circumcised to avoid scandal among the Jews (Acts 16:1- 3). I still see the apostles as being united despite these arguments though.

I also found this interesting bit of historical evidence regarding disagreements and heresy in the early church. It is referenced in a work from the late third-early fourth century. But the original is said to have been written before 170 A.D. It could have been written today.

“Therefore was the Church called a virgin, for she was not as yet corrupted by worthless teaching. Thebulis it was who, displeased because he was not made bishop, first began to corrupt her by stealth. He too was connected with the seven sects which existed among the people, like Simon, from whom come the Simoniani; and Cleobius, from whom come the Cleobiani; and Doritheus, from whom come the Dorithiani; and Gorthaeus, from whom come the Gortheani; Masbothaeus, from whom come the Masbothaei. From these men also come the Menandrianists, and the Marcionists, and the Carpocratians, and the Valentinians, and the Basilidians, and the Saturnilians. Each of these leaders in his own private and distinct capacity brought in his own private opinion. From these have come false Christs, false prophets, false apostles-men who have split up the one Church into parts through their corrupting doctrines, uttered in disparagement of God and of His Christ....

There were, moreover, various opinions in the matter of circumcision among the children of Israel, held by those who were opposed to the tribe of Judah and to Christ: such as the Essenes, the Galileans, the Hemerobaptists, the Masbothaei, the Samaritans, the Sadducees, the Pharisees.”

-Hegesippus [a.d. 170.] Fragments from His Five Books of Commentaries on the Acts of the Church.

Quoted In Eusebius[a.d. 260-339], the History of the Church, Book 4, Ch 22

We as Catholics accept the works of Ireneaus, Athenatius, Augustine, Aquinas etc. and the councils. But some do not, when not viewed through "faith glasses" some see it completely differently. - Jim

Very good point Jim.

BTW, I still pray that all is well with your family.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 08, 2004.

Hi Elpidio,

Paul's Christianity can be properly be called Christianity since Christianity is a Greek word.Not only was Antioch the place where the followers of Jesus were called Christians for the first time, but it was the mother of Gentile Christianity. Every trip of Paul started here. He made it his headquarters. - Elpidio

Why do you say that Paul is the first pope [bishop] of Rome? Wouldn’t Antioch make more sense then?

So if Paul is told emphatically to go to the Gentiles , that means Peter wasn't. Thus, as Romans ch. 16 testifies, Peter wasn't there. Which means the founder of gentile Christianity in Rome is Paul. So Paul is the first Pope of Rome, not Peter. - Elpidio

Yes, Paul received that commission. But this happened after Peter was the first to convert Gentiles and received the revelation about the Gentiles. Although Paul performed much of the mission work, a case could be made for Peter as the “founder” of Gentile Christianity. Why couldn’t Peter have been in Rome to minister to the Jews there? Didn’t Rome have a sizable Jewish community?

This is proof that Peter wasn't in Rome. The Jewish leaders heard about THE WAY, which they call a sect. They want to know more since they have not met a ringleader like Paul before.If Peter had been there, then, there was no need to listen to Paul. - Elpidio

Peter could have been in Rome at some other time. Or he could have been there, but it might not have been known by the Jewish leaders there. Scripture doesn’t explicitly say that Peter never went to Rome. The only explicit reference in Scripture that I could find of Peter being in Rome is the reference to “Babylon,” which is a code word for Rome. Would you accept historical evidence that Peter was in Rome and that he was martyred and buried there? What is your view of Sola Scriptura? Is it possible that even if Scripture doesn’t explicitly say that Peter was in Rome, that he could have been in Rome at one time or another, and even been a leader of the Church there?

Peter's Christianity can be can be more properly be called Ebionism. Ebionites means poor. They existed for a long time. They are even mentioned by the Church fathers. - Elpidio

What positive evidence leads you to conclude that Peter was an Ebionite?

Here is some more on Ebionism from Eusebuis’ History of the Church (c. 313 AD). This doesn’t sound like the Gospel that Peter preached though.

Chapter XXVII. The Heresy of the Ebionites.

1 The evil demon, however, being unable to tear certain others from their allegiance to the Christ of God, yet found them susceptible in a different direction, and so brought them over to his own purposes. The ancients quite properly called these men Ebionites, because they held poor and mean opinions concerning Christ.

2 For they considered him a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary. In their opinion the observance of the ceremonial law was altogether necessary, on the ground that they could not be saved by faith in Christ alone and by a corresponding life.

3 There were others, however, besides them, that were of the same name, but avoided the strange and absurd beliefs of the former, and did not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit. But nevertheless, inasmuch as they also refused to acknowledge that he pre-existed, being God, Word, and Wisdom, they turned aside into the impiety of the former, especially when they, like them, endeavored to observe strictly the bodily worship of the law.

4 These men, moreover, thought that it was necessary to reject all the epistles of the apostle, whom they called an apostate from the law; and they used only the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews and made small account of the rest.

5 The Sabbath and the rest of the discipline of the Jews they observed just like them, but at the same time, like us, they celebrated the Lord's days as a memorial of the resurrection of the Saviour.

6 Wherefore, in consequence of such a course they received the name of Ebionites, which signified the poverty of their understanding. For this is the name by which a poor man is called among the Hebrews.”

See Eusebius’ History of the Church, Book 3, Ch. 27

Would it be accurate to describe your theology as Ebionism without the Law?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 08, 2004.

Andy

Thank you again for the prayers. Much appreciated. I'm going to go polish my "glasses" now.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), December 09, 2004.

"Yes, both Peter and Paul were very humble despite their standing in the Church. Great models of Christian virtue. But who's to say who worked harder, Peter or Paul? They both gave everything they had for Christ and the Church."

Here is your answer that is found in 1 Corinthians 15:9-10, "9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me."

Paul worked harder than Peter and all of the other apostles.

"Just to be clear, the Church doesn't give Peter "primacy". Christ did."

Sorry, Christ did "not" give Peter "primacy" as you state above. Giving the power to "bind and loose" even though the keys to the kingdom are mentioned does not give anyone "primacy" over the other apostles.

"On a side note, Scripture never says that Christ ever told Paul that he would give him either the "keys" or the power "to bind" and "to loose."

Okay, so what is your point?

"Do you believe that Paul had the same authority as the other apostles, and why?"

Yes, and here is what scripture says: 2 Corinthians 12:11-12, "11 I have become a fool in boasting; you have compelled me. For I ought to have been commended by you; for in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing. 12 Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds."

"Kevin, why is it okay for your interpretation of the "keys" that "just because the text doesn't say it, does not mean.." but when that same argument is used for other topics (such as Peter's primacy or infant baptism), we must see it explicitly written in Scripture?"

Because those topics "Peter's primacy" and "infant baptism" are not even implied in scripture.

"After first doubting and then investigating the Catholic claim about Peter in God's Word, I also made up my own mind."

No reading the Bible for themselves (without any Catholic bias) would ever come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the true church of Christ.

"I guess I should add that I believe the Holy Spirit made it up for me."

The Holy Spirit only dwells in the Christian through the word of God. Since the Bible speaks nothing of the Catholic Church nor her doctrines, this statement is not true.

"Your point regarding my potential Catholic bias is well taken and may even be true. But let's be totally honest. There are also anti- Catholic biases that prevent readers of Scripture from seeing the truth."

Yes, the word of God is completely "anti-Catholic".

"Let me clarify a question: "On a side note, Scripture never says that Christ ever told Paul that he would give him either the "keys" or the power "to bind" and "to loose." Do you believe that Paul had the same authority as the other apostles, and why? The short answer is that Scripture tells us that Paul was an apostle. To this I agree. The real question is, did he have the same power "to bind" and "to loose" that Christ gave to all the other apostles? If he did, how and when did he receive this power? Same goes for Matthias. Just curious what you think."

I already answered this above and the answer is found in 2 Corinthians 12:11-12. Here is another reference that prove that Paul had the same power as the other apostles: "5 For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles. 6 Even though I am untrained in speech, yet I am not in knowledge. But we have been thoroughly manifested among you in all things." (2 Corinthians 11:5- 6).

-- Kevin Walker (navyscporetired@aol.com"), December 10, 2004.

A clarification, andy:

Hegesippus never knew the apostles of Jesus. He did not know Paul,....since by quoting certai "famous" heretics who lived after AD 150 like Marcion,...

He only wrote what he thought things were by his days from what he herad. Most documents were already lost in Jerusalem by that time after the Bar Kochba rebellion of 130-33 AD.

There is some confusion on his part on these Jewish sects: There were, moreover, various opinions in the matter of circumcision among the children of Israel, held by those who were opposed to the tribe of Judah and to Christ: such as the Essenes, the Galileans, the Hemerobaptists, the Masbothaei, the Samaritans, the Sadducees, the Pharisees.”

The Essenes are now identified as the group from the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were remnats of Kohanim (priests).They tended to follow an ascetic life. They disappeared by AD 70.

The Galileans were Jesus friends. They are also known as Zelots. Simon the Ken'ani was a Zelot. So were many of Jesus disciples and later members of his Church.

Hemerobaptists and the Masbothaei are the followers of John the Baptist. There are still over 100,000 of them in Iraq today. hey still follow John's Baptism. Jesus' followers tried to atract them by finding a relative connection between Jesus and John.

The Samaritans joined the Christians . Those who did not joined the Muslims later.

Only these opposed Jesus movement: the Sadducees, the Pharisees

Thus Hegesippus reliability is not 100%.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 10, 2004.

Well, Andy. If I am an Ebionite without the Law, then Evangelical Protestants: Lutherans, reformed,... are Catholics without the Pope, and Pre-Vatican Catholics are.....

I classsify myself as kind of in Between Pauline and Ebionite (followers of james, Jsus real brother, and Peter).

Barnabas was the starter of Gentile Christianity, but he actually made Gentiles to circumcise. That was around 34 AD when Paul began to persecute the Church.

By 47 AD Paul had joined Barnabas at Antioch and he began to preach a Christianity without the Law. So ant Antioch, a church which did not follow circumcision was born. Paul was their "Papa". The other group which practiced circumcision folowed Peter and James. For them, "Peter was their Papa".

Neitehr Peter nor Jamesd ever visited Rome. Paul sent his friends to christianize Rome. See Romans 16. There is no mention in any of Paul's letters that Peter was at Rome. Neither do you find that in Acts. You find that information in Books rejected by the Church like the Preaching of Peter and the Acts of Peter.

The First Bishop of Rome to actually use the word Papa was Pius I around 139 AD.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 10, 2004.

As to the Ebionites in Eusebius, they truly are Peter and James descendants (that is their church).

As to Paul's stay in Antioch from Galatians:

Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days

Gal 2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with [me] also.

That means 17 years. He was at Corinth in AD 51. So 17 years before was 33 or 34 AD. Thus, Jesus died in AD 30. Since only Petr was an Antioch, then Peter may be classified as the First Papa of Antioch.

4 These men, moreover, thought that it was necessary to reject all the epistles of the apostle, whom they called an apostate from the law; and they used only the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews and made small account of the rest.

5 The Sabbath and the rest of the discipline of the Jews they observed just like them, but at the same time, like us, they celebrated the Lord's days as a memorial of the resurrection of the Saviour.

6 Wherefore, in consequence of such a course they received the name of Ebionites, which signified the poverty of their understanding. For this is the name by which a poor man is called among the Hebrews.”

You can see they are the descendants of Peter and James.

Gal 2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:

Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;

Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

and they unto the circumcision.

Gal 2:10 we should remember the poor [That is , the Ebionim]

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 11, 2004.

Sorry, Christ did "not" give Peter "primacy" as you state above. Giving the power to "bind and loose" even though the keys to the kingdom are mentioned [emphasis added] does not give anyone "primacy" over the other apostles. - Kevin

You’re still ignoring the Scriptural meaning of the “keys” Kevin. You can’t get around their meaning of authority.

Okay, so what is your point? - Kevin in reply to my question whether Paul had the power to “bind and loose”

Like I said, it was a side note. You replied with the following.

Yes, and here is what scripture says: 2 Corinthians 12:11-12, "11 I have become a fool in boasting; you have compelled me. For I ought to have been commended by you; for in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing. 12 Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds."

That’ll do. Thanks.

Because those topics "Peter's primacy" and "infant baptism" are not even implied in scripture.

But they are implied Kevin. You don’t want to see it. I’ve already made a case for Peter’s primacy. If fact, it’s not just implied, but stated directly when Christ gave him the “keys.” What more must Scripture say for you to see it?

All the Scripture I posted regarding Peter earlier in the thread, certainly implies Peter’s primacy. How can you say that it’s “not even implied”? Receiving the “keys” from Christ explicitly states it, if you understand what the keys mean Scripturally. You argue that it is implied that all the apostles were given the keys. But Scripture only states that Christ gave the keys to Peter. So if it is alright to extrapolate Scripture regarding who Christ gave the “keys” to, why not for doctrines that might agree with the Catholic Church?

Do you have any set “rules” for interpreting Scripture? I understand the necessity to be guided by the Holy Spirit, but how do you know that you are being guided by Him and not your own biases? When do you know that something is implied and when must it be explicitly stated in Scripture?

No reading the Bible for themselves (without any Catholic bias) would ever come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the true church of Christ. - Kevin

That sounds like you are approaching Scripture with the starting assumption that the Catholic Church cannot be the true Church of Christ. Your interpretation of Scripture will be based on that first assumption.

The Holy Spirit only dwells in the Christian through the word of God. Since the Bible speaks nothing of the Catholic Church nor her doctrines, this statement is not true. - Kevin

Any time the Church is mentioned in the Bible it is the Catholic Church. The Bible also speaks of the Catholic Church’s teachings. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this.

Can you better qualify what you mean by “The Holy Spirit only dwells in the Christian through the word of God”? Is the “word of God” only Scripture? Can the Holy Spirit only dwell in a Christian who reads the Bible?

Yes, the word of God is completely "anti-Catholic".

I missed your point. Sorry. Are you saying there is no such thing as approaching Scripture with an anti-Catholic bias? Is there is only a Catholic bias when reading Scripture?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahho.com), December 12, 2004.

Elpidio,

Lots of good info. Thanks. If Hegessipus is untrustworthy, do you have better references I could look up?

I'm still not seeing that you have a hard case that the Ebionites are direct descendants of Peter and James. Even Paul says that in baptism there is neither "circumcised nor uncircumcised". So once baptised, all fell within the Church. Paul went to the uncircumcised, but after baptism they all fell under the apostles. Why the distiction between circumcised and uncircumcised after baptism? That was the whole point of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.

How can you be so sure that "the poor" in Scripture means "Ebionites" and not what we normally think of as the poor?

Would you accept historical evidence that Peter was a leader of the Church in Rome and was martyred there?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 13, 2004.

Are you saying that the members of Peter's and James' churches had different beliefs than Paul's church?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 13, 2004.

Have you read Origen's work against Celsus?It shows what was known back then by around 190 AD. Celsus might be a pagan or a Jew.

No hard evidence that Peter was ever in Rome.Even in the preaching, The killer has the name of the Herodian King from back then. This m,eans , that Peter was executed in/around Jerusalem by AD 63-67 AD.

And , Yes. As you could see from Galatians, and also from I Coritnhians, Paul's oldest letters (51 AD, 53 AD), that his theology was the total opposite of that of Peter and James.Barnabas, Apollos, ,and John Mark were kind of in between. So my theology is between Barnabas -John Markan -Pauline.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 13, 2004.

"You’re still ignoring the Scriptural meaning of the “keys” Kevin. You can’t get around their meaning of authority."

Sorry Andy, all of the apostles had the "same" authority... not one apostle was the head of another apostle...

The apostle John stated in 1 John 4:6, "We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error."

"Like I said, it was a side note."

Very well...

"That’ll do. Thanks."

Your welcome... :-)

I wrote, "Because those topics "Peter's primacy" and "infant baptism" are not even implied in scripture."

To which Andy replied, "But they are implied Kevin. You don’t want to see it."

No, they are not even implied in scripture... and you would not have seen this if not for your Catholic bias...

"I’ve already made a case for Peter’s primacy."

You might have "made a case" however, you most certainly have not proven this to be true...

"If fact, it’s not just implied, but stated directly when Christ gave him the “keys.” What more must Scripture say for you to see it?"

Just because Jesus gave Peter the "keys" does not give him "primacy" over any of the other apostles.

"All the Scripture I posted regarding Peter earlier in the thread, certainly implies Peter’s primacy. How can you say that it’s “not even implied”?"

Because it is not implied.... Like I said before, if it were not for your Catholic bias, you would never see that Peter has any type of "primacy" at all in scripture.

"Receiving the “keys” from Christ explicitly states it, if you understand what the keys mean Scripturally."

Receiving the keys only meant that Peter could bind and loose and that is the same power that all of the other apostles were given...

"You argue that it is implied that all the apostles were given the keys. But Scripture only states that Christ gave the keys to Peter."

Were the other apostles able to "bind and loose"??? If so, then they had the same keys that were supposedly "only" given to Peter...

"So if it is alright to extrapolate Scripture regarding who Christ gave the “keys” to, why not for doctrines that might agree with the Catholic Church?"

Because these doctrines are "not" found in God's word...

That is why...

If faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17) and it does, then infants are "not" able to be saved and are therefore not candidates for baptism... for it is baptism that saves... If an infant cannot hear and understand the gospel of Christ (and they cannot) then all they do when they are baptized throught the Catholic Church or any denomination that practices this are just getting wet...

"Do you have any set “rules” for interpreting Scripture? I understand the necessity to be guided by the Holy Spirit, but how do you know that you are being guided by Him and not your own biases?"

The Holy Spirit does not dwell in us except through the word of God... If faith comes by hearing (and it does), then the only way one can be guided by the Spirit is through God's word...

"When do you know that something is implied and when must it be explicitly stated in Scripture?"

It is something that is called hermeneutics....

I wrote, "No reading the Bible for themselves (without any Catholic bias) would ever come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the true church of Christ. - Kevin"

To which Andy replied, "That sounds like you are approaching Scripture with the starting assumption that the Catholic Church cannot be the true Church of Christ. Your interpretation of Scripture will be based on that first assumption."

The Catholic Church is not mentioned in scripture and her false doctrines cannot be found in the pages of the Bible...

I wrote, "The Holy Spirit only dwells in the Christian through the word of God. Since the Bible speaks nothing of the Catholic Church nor her doctrines, this statement is not true. - Kevin"

To which Andy replied, "Any time the Church is mentioned in the Bible it is the Catholic Church."

This is a false statement... The Catholic Church is never mentioned in the Bible...

"The Bible also speaks of the Catholic Church’s teachings. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this."

Sorry, that is where you are mistaken... It is the word of God that is able to defeat their many false doctrines...

"Can you better qualify what you mean by “The Holy Spirit only dwells in the Christian through the word of God”? Is the “word of God” only Scripture?"

Yes...

"Can the Holy Spirit only dwell in a Christian who reads the Bible?"

Yes...

I wrote, "Yes, the word of God is completely "anti-Catholic"."

To which Andy replied, "I missed your point. Sorry. Are you saying there is no such thing as approaching Scripture with an anti- Catholic bias? Is there is only a Catholic bias when reading Scripture?"

No, I am saying that the Catholic Church and her false doctrines are not found in the Bible...

-- Kevin Walker (navyscporetired@comcast.net"), December 13, 2004.

"No hard evidence that Peter was ever in Rome."

Exactly... Peter was an elder in the church of Christ at Jerusalem... He would not have had any need to go to Rome...

-- Kevin Walker (navyscporetired@comcast.net"), December 13, 2004.

Peter himself specifically writes that he is in Rome.(1 Peter 5:13) Of course, understanding of this passage would necessitate understanding of the New Testament term "Babylon", something one is unlikely to understand from casual personal reading of the text.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 14, 2004.

I'll try to be brief in my reply Kevin. I think Paul made a good point. Most accept Babylon as a code word for Rome, especially when they refer to Revelation.

Our disagreements are at the heart based on how we are interpreting Scripture. I know "what" hermeneutics is, but what I really want to understand is, "how you apply" it to determine doctrine. I will start a new thread with this topic. I think it's worth discussing elsewhere.

You also said a couple other things that beg further clarification.

I'll paraphrase so correct me if I get it wrong. The Holy Spirit can only dwell in a Christian who reads the Bible. Faith comes only by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

These may seem like silly questions, but I'm asking to better understand your position. If faith only comes by hearing the word of God, why are there atheists who not only hear the word of God, but also read it? What are they missing that they don't obtain faith this way? How does a physically deaf person obtain faith?

If the Holy Spirit can only dwell in a Christian who reads the word of God, what about the illiterate (not just today, but throughout the centuries)? How did the Holy Spirit dwell in Christians before the Christian Scriptures were written, compiled, and propagated throughout the world? How did Christians come by faith before Scriptures were propagated throughout the world?

Maybe I'm asking the wrong questions. Do you consider the word of God to be exclusively the canon of the Bible we have today (minus the deuterocanonicals)?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 14, 2004.

Elpidio,

Your latest post

My reply.

Have you read Origen's work against Celsus?It shows what was known back then by around 190 AD. Celsus might be a pagan or a Jew. - Elpidio

No, but I'll look it up. Thanks.

No hard evidence that Peter was ever in Rome.Even in the preaching, The killer has the name of the Herodian King from back then. This m,eans , that Peter was executed in/around Jerusalem by AD 63-67 AD. - Elpidio

There is hard evidence that he was in Rome. What is your reference for Peter being killed in Jerusalem?

And , Yes. As you could see from Galatians, and also from I Coritnhians, Paul's oldest letters (51 AD, 53 AD), that his theology was the total opposite of that of Peter and James.Barnabas, Apollos, ,and John Mark were kind of in between. So my theology is between Barnabas -John Markan -Pauline. - Elpidio

What specifically makes Paul's theology opposite that of Peter and James?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 14, 2004.

Elpidio,

I still don't see why Hegesippus is doubtful. He was a Palestinian Jewish convert to Christianity and wrote around 165 AD.

I think Book II of Origen's reply to Celsus is what you are specifically referring to.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 14, 2004.

Works from the Law, Andy. That is the diference. For Paul circumcision was not necesary fror salvation as was for James and Peter.Unfortunately, John the Apostle is not clear in his theology on this.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 14, 2004.

What brought you to that conclusion, Elpidio?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 14, 2004.

"Peter himself specifically writes that he is in Rome.(1 Peter 5:13)"

Actually, Paul wrote that he was in Babylon, not Rome...

"Of course, understanding of this passage would necessitate understanding of the New Testament term "Babylon", something one is unlikely to understand from casual personal reading of the text."

Is the "Babylon" of the book of Revelations the city of Rome???

-- Kevin Walker (navyscporetired@comcast.net"), December 14, 2004.

"I'll paraphrase so correct me if I get it wrong. The Holy Spirit can only dwell in a Christian who reads the Bible. Faith comes only by hearing and hearing by the word of God."

That is what the Bible states...

"These may seem like silly questions, but I'm asking to better understand your position. If faith only comes by hearing the word of God, why are there atheists who not only hear the word of God, but also read it?"

Because they do not do what God states they must do in order to be saved...

"What are they missing that they don't obtain faith this way?"

They must obey the gospel...

"How does a physically deaf person obtain faith?"

They can read and understand God's word...

"If the Holy Spirit can only dwell in a Christian who reads the word of God, what about the illiterate (not just today, but throughout the centuries)?"

They will be judged according to what they know...

Luke 12:47-48 states, "47 And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more."

"How did the Holy Spirit dwell in Christians before the Christian Scriptures were written, compiled, and propagated throughout the world?"

Through the word of God... same as today... In the first century the word of God was taught orally, now we have the written word of God that is sufficient to produce faith...

"How did Christians come by faith before Scriptures were propagated throughout the world?"

Through the spoken word of God...

"Maybe I'm asking the wrong questions. Do you consider the word of God to be exclusively the canon of the Bible we have today (minus the deuterocanonicals)?"

Yes... The Catholic Church added these books to the Bible... It was the Jews who had responsibility for the Old Testament, not the Catholic Church so these additions (deuterocanonicals) are unauthorized...

-- Kevin Walker (navyscporetired@comcast.net"), December 14, 2004.

Thanks for the reply Kevin.

One last point. The Septuagint (incuding the deuteros) are the books the apostles used. Why should Christians use the Jewish canon and not what the apostles used?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 14, 2004.

Just because they appeared in the Septuagint does not mean that they were to be included in our Bibles...

-- Kevin Walker (navyscporetired@comcast.net"), December 14, 2004.

Why not? If the early Christians used it, why shouldn't we?

In fact, the books of the Septuagint were in use throughout the Church until the Protestant Reformation. I'm not interested in starting another debate over the canon of the Bible. I'm curious why you think we should use the Hebrew canon instead of what all Christians used up until the Protestant Reformation.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 14, 2004.

Because there are no New Testament references to any of the Apocrypha books. The writers of the New Testament did not quote any part of the Apocrypha nor refer to them as part of the OT canon.

-- Kevin Walker (navyscporetired@comcast.net"), December 14, 2004.

Are there any Old Testament books in the Hebrew canon that the New Testament writers don't refer to?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 14, 2004.

Yes, Andy.

Source for this entire post: By What Authority: An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition. Mark P. Shea, 1996.

Books never mentioned, quoted, or even alluded to in the NT:
Ecclesiastes
Esther
Song of Songs

Never quoted in the NT:
Obadiah
Zephaniah
Judges
1 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Lamentations
Nahum

Furthermore, compare these passages for striking similarities/allusions to the deuterocanonicals.

Wisdom 2:12-20 & Mt. 27:41-43
Wisdom 13:1, 5 & Rom 1:19-20
Wisdom 12:24-25 & Rom 1:24-25
*Sirach 27:6 & Mt. 7:17-20
Jesus celebrates Hanukkah as recorded in Maccabees (Jn. 10:22-36)

If you would like an online version with the deuterocanoical books, here are two:
Douay-Rheims
KJV

*Note: Sirach is also known as Ecclesiasticus.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), December 15, 2004.

I was thinking about binary star systems the other day.

Would it be a tough thing to figure out the time of a day when looking up at two suns glaring down from the sky? That could have happened with us on earth had Jupiter been a little bigger. Jupiter could have become another sun; it didn't, of course. But, that got me to thinking about the Scriptures and the concept of "TIME".

I guess "Half-passed Prima Sun and a quarter til Final Sun" would mean something. How about a watch with four hands?

.............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 01, 2005.

Andy,

I don't know if I dreamed this, cause I can't find it anywhere, but didn't you recently post a link to a site that shows Paul quoting from or taking parts of scripture from the "apocrypha?"

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), January 01, 2005.

Jim, I'm not sure about what Andy may have posted (I didn't see what you describe), however, this may help:

Two sites from Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin

Deuterocanon ical References in the New Testament

Defending the Deuterocanonicals

As a matter of interest more than to prove anything, Akin notes something interesting, something which my mom also thought of on her own. The Protestant canon contains 66 books and the Catholic canon, 73. Which version bears the mark of God's numbers?

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), January 01, 2005.

Hi Jim,

You weren't just dreaming, I think I did post something to that effect, or maybe it was regarding the Septuagint. Emily posted the Jimmy Akin links I had for the dueteros for which there is either a reference or an allusion to in the New Testament. Thanks Emily! :-)

Here's one to add to Jimmay Akin's essay (via Emily) from Scripture Catholic.

Here is an additional link that shows verses in the New Testament (including Paul's writings) that refer to the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. The Deuterocanonicals (or Apocrypha) are part of the Septuagint.

Scripture Catholic's Septuagint Quotes in the NT

Also check this seemingly objective and scholarly essay on the subject posted at Columbia University by Steve Brandt of the Augustine Club. The Augustine Club is a student organization dedicated to the study of the Christian intellectual tradition and its approach to the modern world-- the issues and ideas of the day. The members believe that the diverse approaches of Christian thinkers throughout history offer an invaluable contribution to intellectual discourse on campus. The Club is intended for any and all students, regardless of religious affiliation, interested in exploring the truth behind the moral and social issues of our Modern World without adopting the common secular practice of arbitrarily excluding the voice of Christianity from public debate.

Happy New Year!, BTW.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 01, 2005.