JFJ Forums

NEWSFLASH:


*I* don't think that the Whore of Babylon is the RCC AT ALL!

Did you happen to watch the series I posted here with Walid Shoebat as speaker? Food for thought contained in his teachings...not that I am saying he is 100% absolutely correct...but something to consider and search out...and ultimately we must WAIT AND SEE.

Quit attacking messengers and stick with the topic.

The fact that Peter does not assume the role that Jesus supposedly placed upon him, calls into question Peter's understanding of what that role was, and I find that incredible, as in: "I don't believe it".

If the Holy See is Divine appointment, why isn't it listed, along with details about the functions of that High Office, in Paul's list of "administration" in 1 Cor 12:28, 29. No mention of Al Bayit, or Papacy, not even an allusion. Again, not mentioned in 1 Tim 3..where Bishops and Deacons are discussed. Nothing about them being subordinates to anyone person on earth. Peter himself does not allude to this High Office in his writings. He equates ALL OF US AS "LITTLE STONES".

It is one thing to say the man is humble, fine. But to not mention something SO IMPORTANT as the GOD-ORDAINED OFFICE OF UNIQUE SOLE SHEPHERD OF THE WORLDWIDE CHURCH? Kind of an important position to be silent about, huh?

Contrast that with God's appointment of Priesthood(s) in the OT...not just listed once, but several times, everything about the office/apointment, duties, clothing...DETAILED. But here, this "new High Office" is left ambiguous? We have to pluck it from one sentence in a conversation between Jesus and Peter?  An entire doctrine of Authority built on one verse that isn't interpreted the same by readers? More importantly, doesn't seem to be recognized by the very one who is being given the directive?

Cryptic language-- Peter uses code words out of "fear of persecution" but Paul NEVER DOES?? Paul, who was "left for dead" by those who beat the daylights out of him so much so that he himself doesn't even know if he was only unconscious or dead/resurrected, but still using real name, Rome, when writing to/from there? And Paul even goes so far as to name names of OTHER people who are part of the local church...opening THEM up to persecution?

I don't think Peter was "afraid", he was a bold man, with the one exception of his hiding during the capture/trial of Jesus. Frankly, I think he was exactly where he said he was: in Babylon.

It says alot. Peter was as much of an Apostle as the others and that they all held equal spiritual authority in the early church. Jesus nor Scripture provides proof for the claims of the papacy. Peter was not the chief Shepherd by his own writing. Peter list Jesus Christ as the chief Shepherd. Thereby refuting the claims of Peter being head of the visible church on the earth. Plus all elders in the early church had equal authority with one another as well. The facts are this : 1 ) Peter was an Apostle. 2 ) He called Himself a fellow elder . 3 ) He indicates a plurality of elders in the church whom he was writing to. 4 ) He list Jesus Christ as Chief Shepherd. And no one else as that. All of this is proof againist the claims of the papacy. All this right in 1 Peter 5:1-5 itself. Are you sure you want to still claim Babylon is Rome ?

I was literally unable to locate that quote you posted . I can't find it in his writings in book form then when I checked it online I only find that small quote on Roman Catholic web sites. Can you provide something to his exact writing itself and not  secondary source for me please ?




History tells us he died there. Remember even your position would include his final 3 or so years there prior to his murder. Now as for evidence well we have the Epistle of Romans right in chapter 16 which list all important people within the Church of Rome there. We find Peter's name missing from there. If Peter was there at the time his name would have been included in it. The writing of the Epistle of Romans is about 58 ad. So that would mean if Peter was there it would have to be after that period of time. And that leaves  us with the final few years of his life.




To me it does not matter if he was in Rome as Bishop or not. I know he died there. But as far as his ministry is concerned he was in Antioch for some period of time before ever being in Rome. Peter as you would agree appointed leaders in Antioch . Yet no Bishop in Antioch claims to sit on the seat of Peter and claim to be the head of the visible church on the earth. As far as the early church fathers are concerned they dont all agree with one another on the specific listing of Bishops of Rome as I said. To me no matter where Peter was he never claimed to be the head of the visible church on earth nor thought of himself as having more authority than the other Apostles.

I was raised catholic.  To my understanding they base Peter as their first pope because of on his rock I will build my Church.  My personal understanding through prayer has been that what Jesus meant was that when Jesus asked Who do you say I am , and Peter replied you are the Son of God, and then Jesus said "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." NKJV  is that Peter did not receive this from flesh and blood but His Father in heaven.  I beleive that this is what is the Rock.  This is what the True Church is to be built on.  

Yet he never list Peter as first bishop there. But does list Paul and Peter as founders there. Paul worked most with gentile believers there while Peter may have worked mostly with Jewish believers there. The problem is there were more than one Elder / Bishop at the Church of Rome. Even 1 Peter 5:1-5 has a plurality of Elders in it. And Peter being a fellow elder. There is no transmission of Paul or Peter's Apostleship to Linus that is for sure. Linus was made  a Bishop and nothing beyond that. By the way , presbuteros and episkopos in Scripture refers to designate the same office and used interchangable in Scripture. There was no single episcopate in the Church of Rome until after 145ad. There was a plurality of Elders/ Bishops as I stated.




That is the problem . It has Paul and Peter as founders. Why not a seat of Paul since he like Peter was an Apostle ? I do agree that they appointed elders/bishops in the early church. But there is no transmission of Apostleship authority at all to them in any manner. All elders/ bishops have equal authority with one another. The concept of a plurality of elders/bishops in local Churches in the early church is a proven fact in the NT. Clear examples would be Titus 1:5-7 and Philippians 1:1 where it has it in plural form with regard to elders/bishops.

I disagree with that slightly with regard to what we see in the book of Acts and the Epistles. From my own reading of Scripture the type of church government originally formulated was a combined congregational and presebyterial form of church government. I hold that Pastor, Elder and Overseer refers to the same office And are not distinct orders of ministry. And there were deacons and deaconesses in the early church. So we have 2 distinct offices of ministry. This is what people were appointed to by the Apostles. And yet their Apostleship itself was not passed on.




I hold to a form of church government as stated above. I hold Pastor, Elder and Overseer refers to the same office in Scripture and each local church needs to have this. And I believe in a plurality of it as well in each fellowship. Each local church must have deacons as well. I am directly theologically related to Presbyterianism and low Church Anglicanism as Lewis Sperry Chafer was a Presbyterian and Dr. W.H. Griffith Thomas an Anglican were co founders of Dallas Theological Seminary which is a dispensational premillennial seminary. And secondary relationship to Baptist and Lutheranism. As Baptist also were teachers there as well. The Lutheranism comes from a study of various writings of theirs. So the connection there is minor. Basically I have an intercommunion relationship directly with Presbyterians, Low Church Anglicans and Baptist. I personally consider myself catholic with a small c. My disagreement with the RCC is doctrinal. I believe that the RCC has truth mixed with error and has departed from what I believe the true teachings of Jesus and the Apostles in Scripture. I view the RCC as a church but one that has serious error in it.

It list Paul and Peter as founders. The burdern of proof lies on it being Peter alone involved in that appointment to the exclusion of Paul. Yet while Linus was made Bishop there is no evidence of a transmission of any other authority than that which an elder / bishop has. He had no authority equal to that of an Apostle.




It would mean that he failed to list all other elders and bishops in Rome. There is no Apostolic Sucession as held by the RCC. I do believe that there is a sucession of 2 distinct Ministries only namely Pastor/Elder/ Overseer which is the same office and then we have Deacons. Those are the only 2 distinct offices that has been passed down. Secondly, Scripture teaches all Christians are priest. There is no real distinction between believers as far as all being priest unto God. The only distinction is found in the 2 distinct ministries I listed above. Even 1 Peter 5:1-6 indicates a plurality of Pastors/ Elders/ Overseers if we take Babylon to mean Rome in verse 13.




No need to. I already have seen what they wrote before many times. I am sure you must be aware of the disagreements that Tertullian and Augustine had with the Bishop of Rome . Plus Augustine disagreed with the RCC interpretation of Matthew 16:18 as well. Now was far as anyone prior to the Reformation who oppose the RCC view of Church Government that would be the Apostle Paul Himself and the Apostle Peter in their Epistles.

"Apostleship" cannot be transferred. It *IS* a unique status held by twelve, who were all gone from earth with the death of John. One of the requirements of THAT OFFICE was to be an eye witness of resurrected Jesus. cf: Acts 1.

No such equality to/or title of "Apostle" (much less to ONE particular Apostle) is transferred to subsequent any Bishops/elders/teachers/leaders.

Listen here to Paul's account of his appointment, and notice what he says here: Gal 1 CJB:

v. 1- From: Sha'ul, an emissary - I received my commission not from human beings or through human mediation but through Yeshua the Messiah and God the Father, who raised him from the dead - also from all the brothers with me

vv 10-12- Now does that sound as if I were trying to win human approval? No! I want God's approval! Or that I'm trying to cater to people? If I were still doing that, I would not be a servant of the Messiah. Furthermore, let me make clear to you, brothers, that the Good News as I proclaim it is not a human product; because neither did I receive it from someone else nor was I taught it-it came through a direct revelation from Yeshua the Messiah.

vv 15-19- But when God, who picked me out before I was born and called me by his grace, chose to reveal his Son to me, so that I might announce him to the Gentiles, I did not consult anyone; and I did not go up to Yerushalayim to see those who were emissaries before me. Instead, I immediately went off to Arabia and afterwards returned to Dammesek. Not until three years later did I go up to Yerushalayim to make Kefa's acquaintance, and I stayed with him for two weeks, but I did not see any of the other emissaries except Ya'akov the Lord's brother.

Paul needed no such confirmation from anyone to do what God called him to do. ie: God did not send him FIRST to get "Holy Blessings" from, or even notify, Peter (or any one of the other Apostles) before he went out preaching the Gospel.

-cont-

-cont-

What I see in scripture is a downplay of Peter's status. And I really do think that God (and even Peter) did that PURPOSEFULLY so we would not exhalt anyone over, or equal to, the True Cornerstone: Christ.

wk~
There is no earthly king, Jesus is our King. There is no earthly Al Bayit, the Holy Spirit is our Al Bayit. The "semicha" we receive (to BE the Royal Priesthood, Peter's words) is directly from Christ through the Holy Spirit. Christ's Kingdom is NOT of this world, it is a Spiritual Kingdom. No theocracy will be established here until He returns to Israel (not Rome), and He will still be King.

The Temple was a shadow, the Priesthood was a shadow, the animal sacrifices were a shadow, circumcision was a shadow, the kingdom was a shadow....now you want to say the shadow(s) must remain? We aren't physical Israel, or even intended to REPLACE Israel. His holy patterns/shadows are displayed through them...differentiate the shadows themselves from what they were shadows OF: the "better covenant."