Guest astralis Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 Racer, You will be held accountable for your scholarship. I would like to hear about your interpretation about the keys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest racer Posted July 17, 2002 Share Posted July 17, 2002 astralis, Racer, You will be held accountable for your scholarship. I would like to hear about your interpretation about the keys. Such sterness! The fear and trembling is nearly outta control! I'm assuming your referring to this post: See, I think after Jesus gave Peter the keys in Mat 16:18, and called Him satan in Mat 16:23, He took the keys back and split them up amongst all twelve of the apostles in Mat 18:18. JK:lol. I'm guessing you don't know what JK and lol stand for. ??? Am I right? JK=Just kiddin' & lol=Laugh out loud. Learned those two from my chillins. In case you still don't understand, it was, apparently, a poor attempt at satire, or should that be irony? Anyway, it was, um, well (dang, I sure could use that scratches head smilie! Would someone please talk to admin about that?) I wasn't being serious astralis, okay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest racer Posted July 17, 2002 Share Posted July 17, 2002 astralis, Really? This is your previous post: Peter had lots, and lots of issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munari Posted July 17, 2002 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 12 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 444 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/08/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted July 17, 2002 I don't think astralis told you you took those verses out of context... what I think he said (and I may be recalling the wrong thread...) was that the verses in the OT did not refer to Peter, but rather referred to Jesus, but that in the NT, Jesus was referring to Peter as a rock also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest racer Posted July 17, 2002 Share Posted July 17, 2002 munari, I don't think astralis told you you took those verses out of context... what I think he said (and I may be recalling the wrong thread...) was that the verses in the OT did not refer to Peter, but rather referred to Jesus, but that in the NT, Jesus was referring to Peter as a rock also. My point to astralis was that it was established in the OT, that Christ would be the Rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest astralis Posted July 17, 2002 Share Posted July 17, 2002 Such sterness! Thanks! I'm practicing to be a teacher. I may teach this Fall in the school system. You must have been very tired because your answers are all wrong! :inlove: 1. Peter had lots of issues? You yourself said he was previously and evil man. Munari during one of our very first conversations said, and I quote, "Peter wasn't the sharpest stick in the pile." (that one floored me) He denied Christ, not once, not twice, but three times. His faith waivered, when he could have walked on water, he instead sunk. He was a hypocrit, thus was rebuked by one, that if I were an RC, I would consider to be his lesser, Paul. Is that enough? You can go on with all the examples about how Peter was such a bad man - in fact Munari and I pulled these examples for you - but it doesn't change the fact that Jesus chose Peter to lead. 2. Peter was needy? Are you really going to make me quote scripture? I will if you insist. But, I'm really tired. Still doesn't matter. See answer to number one. 3. Peter needed to be the center of attention?This would explain why Peter was doing most of the talking, never letting the other apostles get a word in edgewise. Do you think he must have fooled Jesus? 4. Peter needed constant reasurance? Well, when Jesus said He would be betrayed, curiosity nearly killed Peter. Who shall it be, Lord? (that's a paraphrase, lest you should demand accountability again ) And what does this prove? 5. Peter wasn't Pope? Jesus never even heard of the word, Pope. He also never heard of the word "Trinity" yet the foundations for the Papacy is clearly in scripture just as the Trinity is. You may say, then why all the debate if it's so clear? Well, there's still a lot of debate about the Trinity. 6. Peter was a great Man? I'll have to get back to you on this one. JK I think we all admit that Peter was a great man. But, if you insist on proof I might have a little trouble with this one. He had flaws but I think overcoming flaws and still believing in Jesus during the Apostolic Age is incredible and does make him a great man. 7. Peter was worthy to serve Christ as an apostle and disciple? Does this one require an answer, too? No, we both know the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EPHRIAM777 Posted July 17, 2002 Share Posted July 17, 2002 Purgatory is NOT for the remission of sins... it is a purification of our soul from the EFFECTS of our sins. When we commit a sin, it scars us. Purgatory removes those scars and perfects us so we can enter heaven perfected. SAD.....still IN the wilderness...with no light to guide you...! As the truth of these FALSE teachings comes out...I truely am saddened to read them...! MUNARI..return to your first love...MARK 10:51:52...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest racer Posted July 17, 2002 Share Posted July 17, 2002 astralis, I think the most controlling RCC doctrine, that has such a hold on you, is that the belief in the doctrine that the laity are incapable of accurately discerning Scripture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shilo Posted July 18, 2002 Share Posted July 18, 2002 racer you said Remember, Jesus called Peter satan and told him he was of things of this world and not the world of God . . . .) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanakila Posted July 18, 2002 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 20 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 400 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2001 Status: Offline Share Posted July 18, 2002 Upon reading the passage in Isaiah it appears to be describing the Messiah to come, not Apostolic succession. (remember context is everything) Every passage talking about keys or a key taken and applied to Peter or a line of supposed Popes, should necessarily take into account the context of who the passage is talking about, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts