And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judæa and Samaria, except the apostles
Acts 8:1

Acts 15:2
When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

15 And after those days we took up our carriages, and went up to Jerusalem. 17 And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.

18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present
Acts 21:15-18

Peter evidently travelled a number of times but returned to Jerusalem afterwards. Afterall he was called to the Apostleship(not papacy)of the Jews.
Acts 9:32-43, Acts 10:32 Acts 11:2, Galatians 2:11.

The Apostles gathered occasionally at Jerusalem for mEetings and Councils doesn't mean that they all stayed there. That would be very close to saying Paul was the only one that actually evangelised to the gentiles.

1 Peter 5:13 tells that Peter was in Babylon(Rome) and almost all the other apostles died outside Jerusalem

On the issue of papacy, Jesus did make Peter the Pope. Read Matthew 16:16-19. Remember that Simon was his name and that Jesus Christ gave him the name Peter. John 1:40-42. *lso read Mark 3:16 and Luke 6:14. God does not change names except where something serious is involved.

Note the covenantal structure of changing names.
Change from Abram and Sarai to Abraham and Sarah initiating a covenant with them.
Addition of Israel to Jacob (Which became God's people) or better yet (The Kingdom of God), (A Prefiguring of the Church).
Addition of Peter to Simon (The head of the new Israel/The Head of The Kingdom of God/The Kingdom Of Heaven)

Jolliano:


Because in current times, priests don't marry at all since they won't have sexual relations with a woman. But in the time of the Apostles, majority of the converts were grown people who may have already been married. So for them, even if they lived with their wives, they would stop all sexual relations when they become Apostles/Bishops/Priests.

This is biblical. Remember that the Levites were allowed to marry because their priesthood was passed down by blood and birth but they would avoid sexual relations before eating or partaking in the eating of the Consecrated Bread(The old testament prefiguring of the Eucharist).

Remember that the Early Christians gathered daily for the breaking of bread(The Eucharist which is the body and blood of Christ) and so the Apostles/Bishops/Priests abstained from sexual intercourse because they were the ones who would do the consecration.

When in Luke 14:26, Jesus said they must hate their wives, mothers,e.t.c. It is in this light that he means it. His apostles understood this and for three years they were celibate with Him. Why then would they go back to having sex after he left?


[Quote]They were not mentioned however 1 Corinth 9:5 shows they had wives! Mary was also a disciple but she was only mentioned in Acts 1! Just as we cannot say because the wives of Tychicus, Epaphroditus, Demas, Luke, Titus, etc were not mentioned, it means they were not married!
In fact, Mark 1:29,John 19:27 show that these men had their own houses hence it does not suggest that they were without wives. Besides, When it says lead about a sister, a wife, remember that most of these apostles stayed back at Jerusalem and did not travel as widely as Paul. Hence Paul made his allusion based on what he observed when he went to Jerusalem at the time Peter and the rest were leaders of a burgeoning body of believers!
Therefore, Paul spoke about leading about a wife in the sense of companionship and not following about on missionary journeys!


Firstly, Mary was mentioned many times in the Gospel even at the Crucifixion.

Secondly, most of the apostles moved out from Jerusalem. The apostles moved out to different parts of the world to fulfill the instruction of Christ to go and teach all Nations.

Permit me to call u foo.lish! Evn a Bishop was to be husband of one woman etc etc.
Christians do not become Priests as a title, we all are a nation of King-Priests! Dts a fundamental flaw d Roman Catholic church perpetuates till dis day.
This ur angle of converts leading their marital vows is both s.tupid and unscriptural.
I hv been waiting for u to make some sense, but u r just a rambler who should be ignored!

Bobbysworld28:

Permit me to call u foo.lish! Evn a Bishop was to be husband of one woman etc etc.
Christians do not become Priests as a title, we all are a nation of King-Priests! Dts a fundamental flaw d Roman Catholic church perpetuates till dis day.
This ur angle of converts leading their marital vows is both s.tupid and unscriptural.
I hv been waiting for u to make some sense, but u r just a rambler who should be ignored!

Bobbysworld28:

Permit me to call u foo.lish! Evn a Bishop was to be husband of one woman etc etc.
Christians do not become Priests as a title, we all are a nation of King-Priests! Dts a fundamental flaw d Roman Catholic church perpetuates till dis day.
This ur angle of converts leading their marital vows is both s.tupid and unscriptural.
I hv been waiting for u to make some sense, but u r just a rambler who should be ignored!

LOL.

1. "BISHOP MUST BE OF ONE WIFE." The emphasis here was on Monogamy not on any command that the Bishop must be married but you should know that already.

2. We all share in the Priesthood of Christ. The Catholic Church teaches that essentially. There is however a difference between a general Priesthood and a ministerial Priesthood.
It is the difference between The APOSTLES and the other disciples. Remember the way The office and seat of Judas was refilled by someone else. If it had no meaning, why would they do that?

Also,James 5:14 puts it quite plainly:

Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders (Gr.
presbyteroi) of the church, and let them pray over him,
anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the
prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will
raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be
forgiven.

Notice, the Scripture does not say we should just go to
anyone if we're sick because we are all priests. It singles out
the presbyters.

Again, there is a difference between General Priesthood and the Ministerial Or Apostolic Priesthood.

Jolliano:


LOL.

1. "BISHOP MUST BE OF ONE WIFE." The emphasis here was on Monogamy not on any command that the Bishop must be married but you should know that already.

2. We all share in the Priesthood of Christ. The Catholic Church teaches that essentially. There is however a difference between a general Priesthood and a ministerial Priesthood.
It is the difference between The APOSTLES and the other disciples. Remember the way The office and seat of Judas was refilled by someone else. If it had no meaning, why would they do that?

Also,James 5:14 puts it quite plainly:

Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders (Gr.
presbyteroi) of the church, and let them pray over him,
anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the
prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will
raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be
forgiven.

Notice, the Scripture does not say we should just go to
anyone if we're sick because we are all priests. It singles out
the presbyters.

Again, there is a difference between General Priesthood and the Ministerial Or Apostolic Priesthood.

1. Essentially, marriage and copulation is not a sin. Hw then do u support d claim dt disciples stopped relations with their wives because Jesus called them? Totally absurd.

2. Ur claim is totally unfounded. James was talking abt a support system of believes here not classes of priesthood. Choi, u r still going round in circles

Bobbysworld28:

1. Essentially, marriage and copulation is not a sin. Hw then do u support d claim dt disciples stopped relations with their wives because Jesus called them? Totally absurd.
2. Ur claim is totally unfounded. James was talking abt a support system of believes here not classes of priesthood. Choi, u r still going round in circles

1. The Apostles did. "We have left evevrthing and followed you". Was there any slight mention of any Apostle's wife who followed Jesus along with her husband? Was there any slight mention that an apostle went back to visit his wife or family and then came back to meet Jesus?



2.First of all, a careful reading of 1 Peter 2, verses 5 and 9
reveals a reference to Exodus 19:6: ". . . and you shall be to
me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." This text from
Exodus indicates a universal priesthood in the Old
Testament. And yet, in Exodus 19:22, we read, "And also let
the priests who come near to the Lord consecrate
themselves . . . " In other words, a universal priesthood in
the Old Covenant did not exclude the possibility of a distinct
ministerial priesthood as well. It would be natural then to
expect the same in the New Covenant. And indeed, that is
precisely what we discover.

In Scripture, we see our Lord definitively choosing and
sending apostles to act as priests, or "mediators between
God and men." For example, after the Resurrection, our
Lord appears to the apostles and says to them: "‘Peace be
with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said
to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of
any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are
retained’" (Jn 20:21-23).

Here, Jesus communicated the power to forgive and retain
sins—just as he himself had done—to the apostles. This is a
priestly ministry (see also Lv 19:21-22).

Jolliano:


1. The Apostles did. "We have left evevrthing and followed you". Was there any slight mention of any Apostle's wife who followed Jesus along with her husband? Was there any slight mention that an apostle went back to visit his wife or family and then came back to meet Jesus?



2.First of all, a careful reading of 1 Peter 2, verses 5 and 9
reveals a reference to Exodus 19:6: ". . . and you shall be to
me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." This text from
Exodus indicates a universal priesthood in the Old
Testament. And yet, in Exodus 19:22, we read, "And also let
the priests who come near to the Lord consecrate
themselves . . . " In other words, a universal priesthood in
the Old Covenant did not exclude the possibility of a distinct
ministerial priesthood as well. It would be natural then to
expect the same in the New Covenant. And indeed, that is
precisely what we discover.

In Scripture, we see our Lord definitively choosing and
sending apostles to act as priests, or "mediators between
God and men." For example, after the Resurrection, our
Lord appears to the apostles and says to them: "‘Peace be
with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said
to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of
any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are
retained’" (Jn 20:21-23).

Here, Jesus communicated the power to forgive and retain
sins—just as he himself had done—to the apostles. This is a
priestly ministry (see also Lv 19:21-22).

U r totally wrong. Whn Jesus was abt to leave, he said 'these signs shall follow them who believe...' he then told them to make disciples of all nations.
Did u notice that ppl could not tell him apart frm his disciples? His teachings were not to produce a class of ppl aloof, no! He washed his disciples feet for crying out loud.
What u r saying in essense are:
1. Disciples left their wives (no proof). So Jesus made men irresponsible enuf to abandon their wives and children.
2. There is an additional layer of authority btwn men and Christ (herein lies the follow of the Roman Catholic Church). If Christ lives in me, how can these things u say hold water? Let d teachings of Christ guide u and u wont err

Jolliano:

The Bread of the Presence, in the ancient Tabernacle and
later in the Temple, 1 Kgs 7:48 prefigured Jesus in the Holy
Eucharist.

In the Tabernacle God commanded Moses, Ex 25:8 "Let
them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst."
In the sanctuary, in the ark of the covenant, God told Moses,
Ex 25:22 "There I will meet with you, and from above the
mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are upon
the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you..." God added,
Ex 25:30 "You shall set the bread of the Presence on the
table before me always." Jesus told us, Mt 28:20 "I am with
you always."

Abimelech the priest gave David this sacred bread. 1 Sam
21:6 "So the priest gave him the holy bread; for there was no
bread there but the bread of the Presence." Jesus taught us
that it was for all His disciples. Mt 12:1-8 "At that time Jesus
went through the grainfields on the sabbath; his disciples
were hungry, and they began to pluck ears of grain and to
eat. ... [Jesus] said to them, 'Have you not read what David
did, when he was hungry, and those who who were with
him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of
the Presence ... I tell you, something greater than the temple
is here."

That event was about the sabbath, not who had the right to eat the Bread!

Jesus showed us what was greater than the Temple. Lk 22:19
"He took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it
and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body which is given
for you. Do this in remembrance of me.'"

That was the unleavened bread used for the PASSOVER by all Israelites since Exodus.

Note, many things in the old testament can prefigure one thing in the NT. Apart from the Passover, Consecrated bread, Jesus also showed that Manna was a prefiguring of the Eucharist.

Manna/ Consecrated Bread did not prefigure the Eucharist in ANY way. When did Jesus institute the Lord's Supper/Eucharist?
While we have the proof of the Passover pre-figuring the Lord's Supper in 1Corinthians 5:7, there is NO NT passage that support your claims as regards Consecrated Bread/Manna!
7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

The Apostles were the ones who were celibate. The others were not. Remember Paul talking to the Corinthians told them he wished everyone were celibate like him but people are gifted in different ways. The Apostles lived as celibates but the rest of the Church did not.

Paul was celibate hence his statement in 1 Corinth 9:5. The others were not; they led about a wife.

In order words, it is not either everyone marries or everyone is celibate but that some(for the sake of ministry/kingdom of God) were celibate while the rest are married.

But this negates your claim that that was the meaning of Luke 14:26!!! Was that not meant for all disciples of Christ?

accountable:
And peter had a wife (1 Corinth 9:5, Matthew. 8 : 14). When did popes stop having wives?
If the Bible says that a bishop MUST be the husband of one wife( Timo 3:2). And the pope is the bishop of Rome...... And the catholic leadership stems from the early church. When did it become forbidden for bishop and priest to marry?
Just thinking..........

Be a husband of one wife simply means a bishop cannot be in a polygamous relationship…as for all those questions that follow can you not create different threads for them instead of asking 20 questions in one thread. Also you display total ignorance of what papal infallibility is...Edit i see brother Ubenedictus has provided comprehensive answers. Thanks bro

Jolliano:


The Apostles gathered occasionally at Jerusalem for mEetings and Councils doesn't mean that they all stayed there. That would be very close to saying Paul was the only one that actually evangelised to the gentiles.

On the issue of papacy, Jesus did make Peter the Pope. Read Matthew 16:16-19. Remember that Simon was his name and that Jesus Christ gave him the name Peter. John 1:40-42. *lso read Mark 3:16 and Luke 6:14. God does not change names except where something serious is involved.

You will understand better that the Rock on which the Church will be built is Christ (which Peter just confessed to be Jesus by the Father's revelation) - the Cornerstone:
20 and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Ephesians 2:20
Note that the foundation does not single out any of the Apostles! It is in plural (further confirming that NO ONE can establish his own books or traditions today and claim they are at par with the writings and recorded speeches of those who are the apostles and prophets Paul wrote about). Besides, Paul, being inspired, shows us Who the Rock is!

Peter has something to say:
To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5 ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7 Unto you therefore which believe [size=13pt]he[/size] is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8 and[b] a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence,[/b] even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
1 Peter 2:4-8

Here Peter tells us Who the Stone/Rock is!

He goes on to tell us Who the Chief Shepherd is:
The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2 feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3 neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

1 Peter 5:1-4
Peter said he is just one of the elders. Note that he wrote this while with the Church at Babylon/Rome!

Papist:

Be a husband of one wife simply means a bishop cannot be in a polygamous relationship…as for all those questions that follow can you not create different threads for them instead of asking 20 questions in one thread. Also you display total ignorance of what papal infallibility is...Edit i see brother Ubenedictus has provided comprehensive answers. Thanks bro

Kindly explain papal infallibility and back with relevant scriptures.
Thank u

Scholar8200:
You will understand better that the Rock on which the Church will be built is Christ (which Peter just confessed to be Jesus by the Father's revelation) - the Cornerstone:
20 and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Ephesians 2:20
Note that the foundation does not single out any of the Apostles! It is in plural (further confirming that NO ONE can establish his own books or traditions today and claim they are at par with the writings and recorded speeches of those who are the apostles and prophets Paul wrote about). Besides, Paul, being inspired, shows us Who the Rock is!
Peter has something to say:
To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5 ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7 Unto you therefore which believe [size=13pt]he[/size] is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8 and[b] a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence,[/b] even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
1 Peter 2:4-8
Here Peter tells us Who the Stone/Rock is!
He goes on to tell us Who the Chief Shepherd is:
The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2 feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3 neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
1 Peter 5:1-4
Peter said he is just one of the elders. Note that he wrote this while with the Church at Babylon/Rome!

You forget that Christ handed over his authority to the apostles. John 20:21-23.
He also gave some of his duties directly to Peter only.
Remember, Jesus calls himself the good shepherd and then later, passes the task of the Shepherd specially to Peter when he said "FEED MY SHEEP" 3 Times.

Peter addresses himself as one of the elders because a pope is actually a bishop like all other bishops but is at the same time,the head of all the bishops just as Peter was the head of the Apostles.

Only he was told by Christ on Holy Thursday night “I have prayed for you that your faith never fail and when you’ve repented, go and strengthen your brethren” (Luke 22: 31-32). And when Jesus, after the resurrection, cooked a fish breakfast for the apostles (John 21), it was only to Peter that Jesus put the question “do you love me?”

But why did Jesus ask him the same question three times?
Perhaps Peter needed to atone for his three-fold denial of
Christ by a three-fold profession of love. Perhaps, given
Peter’s track record of getting it wrong, the Lord really
wanted to be sure he got his point across. Here’s the point–

“Peter, your way of expressing penance for your sin and love for me will be to feed my sheep. Remember, they are not your sheep, but mine. Take care of them for me. Do for
them what I did for them. Don’t just feed them. Protect
them. Lay down your life for them if necessary.”

Peter’s role as a Shepherd is, in a way, unique because it is
universal. Despite his human frailty, he is given care of all
the Churches. And, if we take Lk 22:31-32 seriously, he is
called to be the shepherd of all the shepherds.

Scholar8200:

That event was about the sabbath, not who had the right to eat the Bread!




That was the unleavened bread used for the PASSOVER by all Israelites since Exodus.




Manna/ Consecrated Bread did not prefigure the Eucharist in ANY way. When did Jesus institute the Lord's Supper/Eucharist?
While we have the proof of the Passover pre-figuring the Lord's Supper in 1Corinthians 5:7, there is NO NT passage that support your claims as regards Consecrated Bread/Manna!
7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

Paul was celibate hence his statement in 1 Corinth 9:5. The others were not; they led about a wife.


But this negates your claim that that was the meaning of Luke 14:26!!! Was that not meant for all disciples of Christ?

1. Did Jesus not know that before he likened the two together?

2. Unleavened bread was eaten during the passover period not during the passover MEAL. What is eaten in the passover meal is the lamb.

3. John 6. "Your ancestors ate bread in the wilderness and died." "I am the bread of life."

Manna/Consecrated bread prefigures the Eucharist.

4. When I say Apostles, you quote me as saying disciples. The 12 Apostles are different from the other disciples. They were called for a special ministry and they received teachings,power and missions that the other disciples did not.
"Go and make disciples" is not "Go and make Apostles."

Jolliano:


You forget that Christ handed over his authority to the apostles. John 20:21-23.
He also gave some of his duties directly to Peter only.
Remember, Jesus calls himself the good shepherd and then later, passes the task of the Shepherd specially to Peter when he said "FEED MY SHEEP" 3 Times.

Peter addresses himself as one of the elders because a pope is actually a bishop like all other bishops but is at the same time,the head of all the bishops just as Peter was the head of the Apostles.

Only he was told by Christ on Holy Thursday night “I have prayed for you that your faith never fail and when you’ve repented, go and strengthen your brethren” (Luke 22: 31-32). And when Jesus, after the resurrection, cooked a fish breakfast for the apostles (John 21), it was only to Peter that Jesus put the question “do you love me?”

But why did Jesus ask him the same question three times?
Perhaps Peter needed to atone for his three-fold denial of
Christ by a three-fold profession of love. Perhaps, given
Peter’s track record of getting it wrong, the Lord really
wanted to be sure he got his point across. Here’s the point–

“Peter, your way of expressing penance for your sin and love for me will be to feed my sheep. Remember, they are not your sheep, but mine. Take care of them for me. Do for
them what I did for them. Don’t just feed them. Protect
them. Lay down your life for them if necessary.”

Peter’s role as a Shepherd is, in a way, unique because it is
universal. Despite his human frailty, he is given care of all
the Churches. And, if we take Lk 22:31-32 seriously, he is
called to be the shepherd of all the shepherds.

Laughable! Feed my sheep not BECOME THE SHEPHERD! How difficult is dt?
Pls read d book of Hebrews. Jesus is still d shepherd and high Priest of our profession.
He has not abdicated his role.

Jolliano:


1. Did Jesus not know that before he likened the two together?

2. Unleavened bread was eaten during the passover period not during the passover MEAL. What is eaten in the passover meal is the lamb.

3. John 6. "Your ancestors ate bread in the wilderness and died." "I am the bread of life."

Manna/Consecrated bread prefigures the Eucharist.

4. When I say Apostles, you quote me as saying disciples. The 12 Apostles are different from the other disciples. They were called for a special ministry and they received teachings,power and missions that the other disciples did not.
"Go and make disciples" is not "Go and make Apostles."

Let us use ur thinking.
Jesus came and made d 12 disciples, then apostles. He then said as d Father has sent me, so I send u.
Meaning: Replicate d process (disciplines, then apostles). The reach is d whole world till we all grow into d full stature of Christ.
Limiting Apostleship to just 12 is one of d most ignorants statements in Christianity because Paul could never have become an Apostle by this ur limited scope.

Jolliano:


1. Did Jesus not know that before he likened the two together?

2. Unleavened bread was eaten during the passover period not during the passover MEAL. What is eaten in the passover meal is the lamb.

3. John 6. "Your ancestors ate bread in the wilderness and died." "I am the bread of life."

Manna/Consecrated bread prefigures the Eucharist.

4. When I say Apostles, you quote me as saying disciples. The 12 Apostles are different from the other disciples. They were called for a special ministry and they received teachings,power and missions that the other disciples did not.
"Go and make disciples" is not "Go and make Apostles."

1. That event was about keeping the sabbath and Christ was underscoring the fact that the sabbath was made for man; not a case of which bread looked like the other!

2. The Passover was initiated and this was the command:
8 And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs [/b]they shall eat it.
Exodus 12:8
Whither your claims of a passover and another separate meal?

3. John 6 has NOTHING to do with the Lord's Supper! The Lord's Supper was to be done strictly in remembrance of Christ not as a means of having life.
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: [b]this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
Luke22:19,20

4 Your answer here is acceptable to a degree, at least it explains why no other book/tradition can rank side by side with the Bible. However, Paul spoke of ministerial gifts and Apostle was the first mentioned though, these ones may not share the same authority with the ones that where with Him from the beginning of His earthly ministry.

Jolliano:


You forget that Christ handed over his authority to the apostles. John 20:21-23.

That is your interpretation which was neither stated nor hinted at by ANY of the Apostles in their Epistles!
Kindly answer: who is the Body of Christ? the Church or the Apostles.

He also gave some of his duties directly to Peter only.
Remember, Jesus calls himself the good shepherd and then later, passes the task of the Shepherd specially to Peter when he said "FEED MY SHEEP" 3 Times.

The SHEPHERD appointed Peter to feed HIS sheep.Hence Peter , in 1 Peter 5:2,4 looked forward, like a servant would,to his reward at the coming of the CHIEF SHEPHERD. In fact vs 2 showed he understood he was not the only one to do the feeding.

Peter addresses himself as one of the elders because a pope is actually a bishop like all other bishops but is at the same time,the head of all the bishops just as Peter was the head of the Apostles.


Only he was told by Christ on Holy Thursday night “I have prayed for you that your faith never fail and when you’ve repented, go and strengthen your brethren” (Luke 22: 31-32). And when Jesus, after the resurrection, cooked a fish breakfast for the apostles (John 21), it was only to Peter that Jesus put the question “do you love me?”

But why did Jesus ask him the same question three times?
Perhaps Peter needed to atone for his three-fold denial of
Christ by a three-fold profession of love. Perhaps, given
Peter’s track record of getting it wrong, the Lord really
wanted to be sure he got his point across. Here’s the point–

“Peter, your way of expressing penance for your sin and love for me will be to feed my sheep. Remember, they are not your sheep, but mine. Take care of them for me. Do for
them what I did for them. Don’t just feed them. Protect
them. Lay down your life for them if necessary.”

Peter’s role as a Shepherd is, in a way, unique because it is
universal. Despite his human frailty, he is given care of all
the Churches. And, if we take Lk 22:31-32 seriously, he is
called to be the shepherd of all the shepherds.

Unfortunately Peter neither held these views of yours nor exalted himself as you are indicating. All the Apostles ranked side by side. This claim for Peter appears to contradict Christ's view in answering the carnal question: who will be the greatest?

Ephesians 2:20
20 and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
None was singled out here.


Galatians 2:2
And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

Peter was one of the Apostles of repute ( and perhaps notable because of his being an extrovert) but there were others eg James, John etc

Bobbysworld28:

Laughable! Feed my sheep not BECOME THE SHEPHERD! How difficult is dt?
Pls read d book of Hebrews. Jesus is still d shepherd and high Priest of our profession.
He has not abdicated his role.

Yes,he hasn't abdicated his role but knowing that he wouldn't be physically on Earth to do that, he selected Peter and commissioned him to do the work on Earth. Similar to how he asked the Apostles to teach the nation on his behalf since He wouldn't be here physically to do it.

Bobbysworld28:

Let us use ur thinking.
Jesus came and made d 12 disciples, then apostles. He then said as d Father has sent me, so I send u.
Meaning: Replicate d process (disciplines, then apostles). The reach is d whole world till we all grow into d full stature of Christ.
Limiting Apostleship to just 12 is one of d most ignorants statements in Christianity because Paul could never have become an Apostle by this ur limited scope.

Exactly. That is what the CATHOLIC CHURCH calls APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. Do your research.

I never said the Apostles were only and always going to be twelve. I was simply showing the difference between APOSTLES and DISCIPLES and at that time the APOSTLES were only 12.

Jolliano:


Yes,he hasn't abdicated his role but knowing that he wouldn't be physically on Earth to do that, he selected Peter and commissioned him to do the work on Earth. Similar to how he asked the Apostles to teach the nation on his behalf since He wouldn't be here physically to do it.

Still laughable and comical.
He has his Holy Spirit sent to us, he CANNOT abdicate his role, ok?

Scholar8200:
That is your interpretation which was neither stated nor hinted at by ANY of the Apostles in their Epistles!
Kindly answer: who is the Body of Christ? the Church or the Apostles.

The SHEPHERD appointed Peter to feed HIS sheep.Hence Peter , in 1 Peter 5:2,4 looked forward, like a servant would,to his reward at the coming of the CHIEF SHEPHERD. In fact vs 2 showed he understood he was not the only one to do the feeding.


Unfortunately Peter neither held these views of yours nor exalted himself as you are indicating. All the Apostles ranked side by side. This claim for Peter appears to contradict Christ's view in answering the carnal question: who will be the greatest?

Ephesians 2:20
20 and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
None was singled out here.


Galatians 2:2
And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

Peter was one of the Apostles of repute ( and perhaps notable because of his being an extrovert) but there were others eg James, John etc

What about Galatians 1:18?

Yes. All Apostles ranked side by side except for Peter(who was their head) which is why it is almost constantly written "Peter and the apostles" and not just "the apostles" after all everyone would have known that Peter was an Apostle.

If the Apostles had no authority, what then did they use to define the issue of circumcision at the Council of Jerusalem and with what authority did Peter make the declaration in ACTS 15:11?

Bobbysworld28:

Still laughable and comical.
He has his Holy Spirit sent to us, he CANNOT abdicate his role, ok?

Read Acts 15. Even with the Holy Spirit, the Apostles argued for a LONG time(v7) until Peter stood up and put an end to the debate once and for all. This argument has never been brought up again.

Jolliano:


What about Galatians 1:18?

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.
Galatians 1:18,19

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Galatians 1:11,12

He did not go to Peter for teaching/feeding.

Yes. All Apostles ranked side by side except for Peter(who was their head) which is why it is almost constantly written "Peter and the apostles" and not just "the apostles" after all everyone would have known that Peter was an Apostle.

That he was like the spokesman does not mean he was their head. Even Jesus did not choose one when they wanted to know who will be the greatest among them. The council at Jerusalem in Acts 15 suggests a maintained sense of equality among the Apostles: James issued what will be the conclusion of the deliberations neither by Peter's behest, nor subject to Peter's approval!

If the Apostles had no authority, what then did they use to define the issue of circumcision at the Council of Jerusalem and with what authority did Peter make the declaration in ACTS 15:11?

Christ already gave them (not one) this authority (more like an assignment) in John 15: 20b,27(affirmed in Ephesians 2:20). The Authority of Christ is in His Name and that Name is available to all that believe. However, His authority as the Head of the Church is in the hands of NOBODY!

Jolliano:


Read Acts 15. Even with the Holy Spirit, the Apostles argued for a LONG time(v7) until Peter stood up and put an end to the debate once and for all. This argument has never been brought up again.

But , with discernment, they could only take a decision pleasing to the Spirit Who did not dictate to them but, as Jesus had said He would, led them to all Truth regarding the matter at hand:

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29 that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Acts 15:28
Note:
1. The order - the Holy Ghost before 'us'.
2. The union - it did not say to me.

P.S James rounded up the meeting, not Peter Acts 15:13

Jolliano:


Read Acts 15. Even with the Holy Spirit, the Apostles argued for a LONG time(v7) until Peter stood up and put an end to the debate once and for all. This argument has never been brought up again.

Pls stop! I really hv to stop this charade! U hv d guts to insinuate that Jesus gave his authority to just Peter and d other eleven when scripture firmly affirms:
mrk16.17-18.kjv And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

And

mat28.18-20.kjv And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.


Can u see d instructions? Teach them to do wht I commanded u! In order words, train them to be like u even as u continue to do same. I am with u always!!!!! How can he relinquish his authority if he's always with (& in) you to the end of the world?

Pls stop your blaspheme, it has become irritating

Scholar8200:

Kindly present your source of the original greek where that comma between sister and wife was not placed. (At least I gave mine!)

it is common knowledge that d original scriptures do not have commas

Scholar8200:

Mark 1:30 tells us:
But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever...

Now will Simon separate from his lawfully wedded wife and keep/lead about other sisters as companion/helpers?! Is that proper?

When Jesus clearly said that,''...what therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder'' Matthew 19:6b

actually, scripture only identifys peters mother in law in dat passage, it doesnt hint whether or not d wife was alive or dead.

Ubenedictus:
actually, scripture only identifys peters mother in law in dat passage, it doesnt hint whether or not d wife was alive or dead.

Going further to 1 Corinth 9:5, Paul hinted that Cephas/Peter still led about a wife.

Ubenedictus:
actually, scripture only identifys peters mother in law in dat passage, it doesnt hint whether or not d wife was alive or dead.

So it is wrong for anyone to assert that she was dead or that Peter seperated from her once he came to Jesus.
I dont think Jesus would have condoned such irresponsibility, do you?

Scholar8200:
Which the text implies to be brief lest either be tempted as a result of incontinence.


But Paul's mention of Cephas and other apostles leading about a sister, a wife contradicts the claims of Tertullian and yours here?
Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas
1 Corinth 9:5
Since you accept that Peter (who you call the first pope but Bible reveals he was Apostle to the Jews Galatians 2:7, had a wife, why change that verse as regards to other apostles?


Tertullian: Peter had a wife but just like the other apostles, led about a sister as a helper. Other apostles were not married but had sister-helpers. (the very suggestion places a question mark on their integrity).

Pope St. Clement: They had wives and took their wives with them (permanently denying them of conjugal relations while converting them back to just sisters!)


Besides, why would Paul single out a sister? Afterall in Romans 16 for example many assisting saints were mentioned (not just one 'consort') and even a couple, Aquilla and Priscilla). When they embarked on a missionary journey, the only helper was John Mark then why the emphasis on a sister helper if that was all that was involved?

Moreover, in 1Corinth 7 Paul clearly stated that he was a celibate which I believe explains 1 Corinth 9:5! - he was not leading about a wife like other apostles did because he was a celibate, a eunuch for the kingdom's sake being a path he chose for himself!

now the both of you are dancing around, some married some weren't...

Scholar8200:

But , with discernment, they could only take a decision pleasing to the Spirit Who did not dictate to them but, as Jesus had said He would, led them to all Truth regarding the matter at hand:

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29 that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Acts 15:28
Note:
1. The order - the Holy Ghost before 'us'.
2. The union - it did not say to me.

P.S James rounded up the meeting, not Peter Acts 15:13

1. Still any number of Christians would not gather and make a decision which would be binding on all Christians. For their decision to be obeyed and followed by all, they must have had a certain RECOGNISABLE and ACCEPTABLE AUTHORITY.

Of course, I'm not saying the Holy Spirit was not more important. The Holy Spirit guided them but if the Council had no authority, then the others wouldn't have adhered to it.

You say the Apostles didn't have special authority. Was the "Whatever you bind on Earth is bound in Heaven..." given to everyone or to Peter and then to the Apostles?

And Peter ended the debate by defining what we call a DOGMA.

James made a suggestion as to what message should be passed across. Peter ended the debate.

Bobbysworld28:

Pls stop! I really hv to stop this charade! U hv d guts to insinuate that Jesus gave his authority to just Peter and d other eleven when scripture firmly affirms:
mrk16.17-18.kjv And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

And

mat28.18-20.kjv And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.


Can u see d instructions? Teach them to do wht I commanded u! In order words, train them to be like u even as u continue to do same. I am with u always!!!!! How can he relinquish his authority if he's always with (& in) you to the end of the world?

Pls stop your blaspheme, it has become irritating

Who did he tell "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven"?
Who did he tell "Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven"?