THE ONE & ONLY TRUE ROCK!

contents:
Re: Nicholas calls Jesus a liar! (2) / First Response to True Rock
Answer1 to BAM / Answer2 to Bam / More Confusing Discussions
Second Reply to Timothy / Re: One&Only True Rock (5) / More Rock-Talk With Timothy
Joe Justice & the Text - 1 & 2 / On Distortion (+1) / Re: More Distortion
More On Distortion / Re: More Distortions (6) / ON LOSERS & SUCH
More Losers & Such / Re: More Losers & Such / On Love & Other Things
Dominic & the World / Still More Distortn / Reply2mordis Critics
Re: More Distortions (4) / A Matter of Credentials - 1 & 2

/ Subject > Re: Nicholas calls Jesus a liar! / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / 18 May 1998 /
.
>> romanist wrote: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church;
>> and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. This is BIBLICAL proof that Jesus is building his church
>> and that it can not "fall into error"
.
> CB replies: True but he did not build it on Peter. Of course you would have to read a few more
> verses to understand that.
.
 Padraic42 answers: Yes he did. If you read it a bit more, you'd see that. Peter is the 'Rock' in which our faith, whose foundation is Chrsit, is set. "The biblical Petrine data is quite strong, and is inescapably compelling by virtue of its cumulative weight, even when looking at the King James Bible, the most well known Protestant Bible." This is especially made clear with the assistance of biblical commentaries. The evidence of Holy Scripture follows.
.
 (1) Matthew 16:18: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The "rock" (Greek, "petra") referred to here is St. Peter himself, not his faith or Jesus Christ. Christ appears here not as the foundation, but as the architect who "builds." The Church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men (see, for example, 1Pt 2:5). Today, the overwhelming consensus of the great majority of all biblical scholars and commentators is in favor of the traditional Catholic understanding. Here St. Peter is spoken of as the foundation-stone of the Church, making him head and superior of the family of God - that is, the seed of the doctrine of the papacy. Moreover, "Rock" embodies a metaphor applied to him by Christ in a sense analogous to the suffering and despised Messiah (see 1 Pt 2:4-8; Mt 21:42). Without a solid foundation a house falls. St.Peter is the foundation, but not founder of the Church; administrator, but not Lord of the Church. The Good Shepherd (Jn 10:11) gives us other shepherds as well (Eph 4:11).
.
(2) Matthew 16:19: "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." The "power" of the keys has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (see Is 9:6; Jb 12:14; Rv 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances and legislative powers. In the Old Testament, a steward, or prime minister, is a man who is "over a house" (Gn 41:40; 43:19; 44:4; 1 Kgs 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Kgs 10:5; 15:5; 18:18; Is 22:15, 20-21).
.
(3) Matthew 16:19: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." "Binding" and "loosing" were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to "forbid" and "permit" with reference to the interpretation of the law and, secondarily, to "condemn," "place under the ban" or "acquit." Thus St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life by virtue of revelation and the Spirit's leading (see Jn 16:13), as well as to demand obedience from the Church. "Binding and loosing" represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23). St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him pre-eminent." (The Pre-Eminence of St. Peter - 50 New Testament Proofs By: D. Armstrong - a convert to Catholicism from Evangelicalism.)
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
> Padraic42 wrote: Peter is the 'Rock' in which our faith, whose foundation is Chrsit, is set.
.
 textman replies: Dear Paddy, the foundation of my faith is the Son of Man; who is also known as 'The Anointed One'. Just who is this 'Chrsit' anyway? I don't believe he is mentioned in the Bible I read.  By the way, is this Peter the same one who denied our Lord when he needed his support the most? Is this the same Peter who gave in to James (the Lord's brother) in the most cowardly fashion, such that Paul was moved to publicly 'dress him down'? Say, that's one hell of a stable Rock you got there! No wonder the Roman faith no longer knows which way is up!

/ Subject > Re: Nicholas calls Jesus a liar! / 19 May 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
>>> Padraic42 wrote: Peter is the 'Rock' in which our faith, whose foundation is Chrsit, is set.
.
>> textman answers: Dear Paddy, the foundation of my faith is the Son of Man;
.
> Padraic42 replies: Gee, the same thing I said. Are you so bigoted you don't even read it?
.
 Dear P42, I was very impressed with your well considered response to my queries ... None of which you answered, by the way. No doubt there is no need to bother yourself on them since I am so obviously bursting with bigotry that I am unable to read. So anyway, now I have a problem with your 'answer' ... You say that the two quoted statements are "the same thing"; but I perceive some major differences between my simple statement and your compound sentence. The most important of these is that yours is actually two assertions: (1) Our faith is set in the Rock (=Peter). (2) The foundation of our faith is Chrsit (ie. Christ). In other words, whereas my faith has but one foundation stone (ie. the truth about who Jesus is), yours appears to have two. Now I would call this a rather striking difference, and therefore our respective statements are NOT the same thing at all! Could you perhaps please take the time to clarify this discrepancy?

P.S. The pre-eminence of St Peter (or rather, The Vicar of Christ) has as its Foundation Stone the pre-eminence of the Gospel According to Matthew, and the priestly interpretation of same.

/ Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / Subject > Re: Nicholas calls Jesus a liar! / 19 May 1998 /
.
> Arthur Williamson writes: Quick response to your questions: 1. Christ = Anointed One (Gk). 2. Yes,
> this Peter is the same one (Simon, son of Jona) who denied Jesus. Later, Jesus thrice asked him to
> affirm his faith when he asked "Peter, do you love me?", and thrice Peter said Yes. God's healing
> work is wonderful. 3. James issue -- the same Peter. 4. Don't take my or any Catholic's word for it.
> Rather listen to Jesus. After all, it was Him who changed Simon's name to Rock. It was Jesus who
> founded HIS church (not yours or mine) on Peter, giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven
> and the power to bind and loose in heaven as on earth. How else do you explain His words?
> Lastly, pray.
.
 textman replies: Dear Arthur, thx for your answers, query, and commentary. Actually, my questions were rhetorical in nature, as I already know your items 1, 2, 3, and 4. But your question is good. How do I explain Jesus' words? There are two ways: General & Particular.
.
 (1) THE GENERAL APPROACH proceeds on a firm appreciation for the history of the early Greek churches, and the formation of the canon. Now Matthew was written at a time of great ferment among the young churches (85-90CE); when the 'parting of the ways' between Judaism and Christianity was well under way. In this puzzling and confusing generation, the churches needed their apostolic ties more than ever. Consequently, Mt was written to compensate for the perceived deficiencies of Mark; whose view of the apostles was not nearly episcopal enough. Hence Mt is fairly over-flowing with with lovely rabbinic and priestly sayings that only very much later were understood to have as their purpose the support of the awesome authority and pre-eminence of Rome's bishops ... (ie. the early Greek churches did NOT have any such notion in mind).
.
 (2) THE PARTICULARS: Now whenever challenges are made to papal authority, infallibility, the binding power of Canon Law, the Catechism, and various other ecclesial documents, (and other related subjects) ... one of the first rebuttals to be made against all such criticisms is by way of reference to the famous Jesus Saying in Matthew whereby the foundation of the Church is firmly laid upon the shoulders of Peter. The priestly interpretation of this particular portion of Matthew is such that everything depends on the fact that there is a 'play on words' at work in this text. Now before we look at the text itself, I would just like to point out that it does seem rather odd that Christ would 'play around' on such a critical matter. I mean, when you come right down to it, everything depends on these few all-important verses. Rome has made these verses - or rather, the priestly interpretation of these verses - the foundation of all its authority over the Hearts & Minds & Lives of all Christians!!! Take these few verses out of the text and the entire convoluted edifice that the World-Devouring Corporation stands upon, comes tumbling down, comes crashing down, with a great noise and much bellowing! ...
.
 So OK. How does it all work? In the ancient Koine-Greek of the Roman Empire, the name 'Peter' also functioned as a noun; a rather simple and common noun, and that word is 'rock'. Right. So "Petras" can refer to both stones and men. So when Jesus says "Upon this rock ...", he is either making reference to some sort of stone (in this case a 'foundation stone'), or to someone named 'Stone', or to both. Of course, the 'play on words' only works because both references are possible and intelligible. BUT the question is: Is the Church right to suppose that it is Peter (aka 'The Vicar of Christ') that Jesus is talking about when he says 'rock'? That is the million dollar question!

 ... "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of  the prophets." So he asks them, "But you ... Who do you suppose me to  be?" And Simon Peter answering said, "You are the Christ, the Son of  the Living God." And having answered so, Jesus said to him, "Blessed  are you, Simon bar-Jona, for flesh and blood did not reveal this to  you, but my Heavenly Father. And I also say to you that you are  Peter/Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the  Gates of Hades will not overcome it ..." [Mt.16:13-18 / Prophet Version]
.
 "The Lord Jesus Christ tells us, 'Upon this Rock will I build my Church'. What did the Lord Jesus Christ mean, when He spoke of this foundation? Did he mean the Apostle Peter, to whom He was speaking? I think most assuredly not. I can see no reason, if he meant Peter, why He did not say, 'Upon thee' will I build my Church. If He had meant Peter, He would have said, I will build My Church on thee, as plainly as He said, 'to thee will I give the keys.' No! It was not the person of the Apostle Peter, but the good confession which the Apostle had just made. It was not Peter, the erring, unstable man; but the mighty truth which the Father had revealed to Peter. It was the truth concerning Jesus Christ himself which was the Rock. It was Christ's Mediatorship, and Christ's Messiahship. It was the blessed truth, that Jesus was the promised Savior, the true Surety, the real Intercessor between God and Humanity. This was the rock, and this the foundation upon which the Church of Christ was to be built." [J.C.Ryle, 'Warnings to the Churches']

/ Topic > ANSWER1 TO BAM / Subject: Re: One&Only True Rock / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / 22 May 1998 /
.
> BAM say: to textman. Many more learned disagree with you: Tatian the Syrian: "Simon Cephas answered
> and said, 'You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.' Jesus answered and said unto him, 'Blessed are
> you, Simon son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
> And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of
> hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]). <snip>
.
  textman replies: What happened to the equally important verses 13-15?
.
> The Letter of Clement to James "Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the
> true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church,
> ... <snip> The Clementine Homilies: "[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] For you now stand in
> direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]" (Clementine
> Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]). Origen: "Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid
> of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Mt 16:18].   <snip>
.
 What is this firm and solid rock that many of your authorities are on about? Peter himself was not very 'firm' (as the scriptures clearly testify); although his faith/knowledge/confession that Jesus was the Messiah (or Anointed One) and the Son of the living God (ie. that he was the Son of Man as Jesus had just said) WAS firm. This everlasting truth was firm enough to be the foundation of the Faith when the mortal man (in jest called 'Rock') was more like unto a jellyfish when confronted with more dynamic Christian leaders (eg. James (ie. the Lord's brother; not the author of Jm) and Paul; again, according to the scriptures). So it has been with almost all the popes down through the centuries. Rare is the papal prince who acts rather than reacts! Now it is also true that the city and people of Rome did much to keep the Faith alive when it could otherwise have been easily lost.  ...
.
 But this in no way justifies the blatant abuse of sacred scriptures that the priestly interpretation inevitably involves. The church of Rome along with all the other churches) - and with the help of the Spirit of Truth, and Divine Providence - managed to keep the scriptures alive and well ... even when corruption and ambition was blazing all around! Was not Francis himself converted by the Word of Truth? Was not Ignatius himself saved by the Holy Book? Let us therefore suppose at once that the time has come to free the Word of the Lord (which is the Very Voice of Christ (as scripture testifies)) from the heavy chains and awful tyranny of the priestly understanding/vision of the Bible!
.
> Cyprian of Carthage: [...] For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but
> it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another" (Let.).
.
 Yes, indeed! They certainly can do that ...
.
> <snip> Ephraim the Syrian: "[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation
> of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. [...]
.
 If this is what the Lord had meant in Mt 16:18, why did he not say so just as plainly as Ephraim? Surely he would have, had he known that the papacy depended on it!
.
> <snip> Ambrose of Milan: "It is to Peter that he says: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock
> I will build my Church' [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. [...]
.
 But BAM! How on earth could the Lord build his church on any man? Was not Peter as mortal as any other man? When he died, did the church collapse for lack of a 'firm' foundation? Please remember that there was no 'pope' as such in the apostolic age. What then was holding up the church while history hurried to develop the idea of papal primacy? Was it not the faith/truth that Jesus Christ is the Lord?! What a colossal arrogance it is for any man to suppose that he is the one sure foundation for the entire church! The one sure font of all saving spiritual truth! Does the pope serve the scriptures? Or do the Scriptures serve their one true lord and master: the incomparable papal prince?! But if the pope wishes to demonstrate that he serves the Word of the Lord as an unworthy servant, then let him eat some humble pie ... lots of it!
.
> Pope Damasus I: [...] The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church,
> which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3).
.
 Surely not. But only if you are utterly ignorant of Church history!
.
> Jerome: "'But,' you [Jovinian] will say, 'it was on Peter that the Church was founded' [Matt. 16:18].
> Well ... one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division."
> (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]). <snip>
.
 It is the pope himself (as well as his claims) that are 'an occasion for division' today. John Paul II has openly admitted this to the eastern Patriarchs.
.
> Augustine: "[...] Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement ... In this order of succession
> a Donatist bishop is not to be found" (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).  <snip>
.
 You mean that there were heretical bishops in the early church? Oh, say it ain't so! ... Hey; maybe that's why the myth of episcopal succession was invented ... ???
.
> Pope Leo I: "[...] that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter's solid rock, [...]" Council of
> Chalcedon: "Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through
> us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the
> Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith,
> has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]).   <snip>
.
 Stripped him bare, did they? I guess there are exceptions even to priestly adherence!
.
 So apparently you and your ecclesiastical authorities misunderstand a complex and fascinating passage. And you do it deliberately by taking it out of context so as to make it seem that Jesus is talking about popes when the 'bare text' itself hardly suggests such an awkward rendering (especially when the genesis of composition, and the dynamic historical process of the formation of the canon are taken into account). Frankly BAM, I'll stack my one Ryle quote up against any list of scholars and saints that you care to devise, and your list will still be found wanting! I think it all basically comes down to a matter of how you wish to approach scripture. Some Christians treat every literal word as a golden nugget straight from God's Mouth; but they nevertheless collect their favorite bits like jewels, and arrange them 'just so' for maximum dramatic effect, etc. Others are skeptical or dispassionate or downright dismissive of almost everything ... their 'fruits' are meager at best. Still others feign an outward respect for the Book, but will not admit the Word of Truth into their hearts.
.
 And so it goes on and on. There are Marxist and liberationist interpretations of scripture; along with feminist, buddhist, deconstructionist, and many other hermeneutical methodologies (all implicitly or explicitly claiming primacy of one form or another). This is what you do when you present us with this confused and confusing mosaic of priestly interpretations from the early Greek and Latin churches.
.
> Now....where are the witnesses to your Biblical interpretations? When did they hit the scene?    -- BAM
.
 Well, the thing is that the witnesses to my interpretations of Scripture are all in heaven, dear BAM. They are not expected to arrive for quite some time yet!
.
 So anyway, it seems that Dei Verbum is a good place from to which to begin when seeking the Catholic understanding of the scriptures. 4X: "The most intimate truth which this revelation [ie. scripture] gives us about God and the salvation of man [and woman] shines forth in Christ, who is himself both the Mediator and the sum total of Revelation" (#2). Thus the "inspired books" express the saving Gospel and apostolic preaching "in a special way" (#8). "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit" (#9). But despite the few bright spots, this Vatican II document is not so much about scripture as it is about putting scripture in its proper place ... ie. firmly under the papal boot. Thus: "But the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone" (#10). Alas, "an authentic interpretation" is precisely what the priestly vision of all things is utterly incapable of!
.
 Therefore the Church's position on the Bible is clear: The so-called 'teaching office' determines what is or is not true in the scriptures (which are a witness and testimony of revelation, etc). The Bible is part of the single deposit of faith, and is hierarchical in nature. The NT is more important than the OT (which is basically just prophetic foreshadowing). And the Gospels are pre-eminent among the 27 NT books. And - of course - the Gospel of Matthew is always first among these four! Once you add to this the fact that the only valid interpretation of scripture is the priestly one, it all adds up to one nice and tidy little package whereby the entire Book is simply reduced to an impotent instrument in the hands of the papacy. In practice all this also means that the words of the bishops are just as much "the Word of God" as scripture is ... indeed, they are often even more so. And if the words of bishops are seemingly contradicted by the words of scripture, they can simply say that the contradiction is 'merely apparent'; but in any case, it is the episcopal word that shall always prevail! What do you think about that, dear BAM? Can you still suppose that the Catholic vision of the Bible is one of gratitude and respect? I saw precious little of either in my 40 years as a Catholic.

- the almost authentic one - textman ;>

P.S.  Another useful resource for all Catholics interested in the Bible is "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" by the Pontifical Biblical Commission (1994). Actually, this small book is a MUST for all serious bible students of the Catholic persuasion.

THE ONE & ONLY TRUE ROCK!

/ Date > 24 May 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
BAM1106016 answers: Sorry Bub, you're in denial. Peter was the bravest of all the Apostles. He walked on water because he had the greatest faith. He was the only Apostle to follow Jesus after he was arrested. He was the first of the Apostles in every way. You know nothing about James, and as for Paul, well, he used to kill Christians between meals. You're deliberately closing your eyes because you hate the consequences of truth. You have an evil heart.
.
 Stop lying to yourself and consider the following: 1) Matt. 16:18  The 'Rock' referred to here is St. peter himself, not his faith, or Jesus Christ.  Christ appears here not as the foundation but as the architect who 'builds'.  The Church is built, not on confesions, but on confessors - living men (ref. 1 Pt. 2:5). The over-whelming concensus of the great majority of biblical scholars and commentators favor the traditional Catholic understanding ... Without a solid foundation, a house falls. The foundation, Christ, is set in the 'rock' which is Peter. Peter is not the founder of the Church, but the rock on which it is built.  He is not the founder, but the administrator.

2) Matt. 16:19 The 'power' of the keys has to do with ecclesiatical discipline and admin authority with regard to the requirements of faith (rf. Is. 9:6; Jb 12:14; Rev. 3:7)  Fro this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, imposition of penances and legislative power.  In the OT, a steward, or Prime Minister, is a man who is "over a house" (Gn. 41:40; 43:19; 44:4; Kgs 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Kgs 10:5; 15:5; 18:18; Is 22:25, 20-21)

3) Matt. 16:19 "Binding" and "Loosing" were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to "forbid" and "permit" with reference to the interpretation of the law and to "condemn", "place under ban", or "acquit". Thus St. Peter and the Popes are given authority to determine rules for doctrine and life (faith and morals) by virtue of revelation and the Spirit's leading (ref. Jn 16:13). St. Peter is the only one who recieves this power and authority by name and in the singular, making him pre-eminant.

4) Peter's name appears first in all lists of the Apsotles (Mt. 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13)
    Matthew even calls him "the first" (10:2)
5) Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else (the exception
    being Gal. 2:9), but he is clearly pre-eminent in the entire context (1:18-19; 2:7-8)
6) Peter alone recieves a new name, "Rock" solemnly conferred (John 1:42; Mt. 16:18)
7) Peter is regarded by Jesus as the chief shepherd after Himself (John 21:15-17), singularly by name, and
    over the Universal Church, even though others have similiar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2)
8) Peter alone among the Apostles is prayed for by Christ in order that his "faith fail not" (Lk. 22:32).
9) Peter alone is exhorted by Christ to "strengthen your brethren". (Luke 22:32)
10) Peter first to confess Christ's divinity.  (Mt. 16:16)

11) Peter alone is told that he has recieve divine knowledge by special revelation (Mt. 16:17)
12) Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.
13) Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way. (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15)
14) Jesus uniquely associates Himself with Peter in the miracle of the tribute money. (Mt. 17:24-27)
15) Christ teaches from Peter's boat and the miracle of the catch follows (Lk. 5:1-11) perhaps a
      metaphor for the pope as a 'fisher of men'. (Mt. 4:19)
16) Peter was the first Apostle to set out for, and enter, the empty tomb (Lk. 24;12; Jn. 20:6)
17) Peter is specified byan angel as the leader and representative of the Apostles (Mk 16:7)
18) Peter leads the Apostles in the fishing (Jn. 21:2-3, 11) Peter, at the helm of the Church.
19) Peter alone casts himself into the sea to come to Jesus (Jn 21:7)
20) Peter's words are the first recorded and most important in the Upper room before Pentacost
      (see Acts 1:15-22)

21) Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22)
22) Peter is the first to speak, and the only one recorded after Pentecost, so he was the first to
       'proclaim the Gospel' in the Church. (Acts 2:14-36)
23) Peter performs the first miracle of the Church Age, healing the lame man. (Acts 3:6-12)
24) Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God. (Acts 5:2-11)
25) Peter's shadow works mircales (Acts 5:15)
26) Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40)
27) Cornelius is told by an angel to seek Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6)
28) Peter is the first to recieve Gentiles after a revelatoin from God (Acts 10:9-48)
29) Peter instructs the other Apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17)
30) Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (being
      delivered from prison) (Acts 12:1-17)
31) The whole Church (strongly implied) prays for Peter w/o ceasing when he is imprisoned. (Acts 12:5)

32) Peter presides over and opens the first council of Christianity and lays down principles afterward
      accepted by it. (Acts 15:7-11)
33) Paul distinguishes the Lord's post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those to other Apostles
      (1 Cor. 15:4-5)
34) Peter is often spoken of as distinct among the Apostles (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:28,32; Acts 2:37; 5:29;
      and 1 Cor. 9:5)
35) Peter is often the spokeman for the other Apostles, especially at climatic moments (Mk. 8:29;
      Mt. 18:21; Lk 9:5; 12:41; Jn 6:67)
36) Peter is always mentioned first among the 'inner circle' of Apostles (Peter, James, John)
      (Mt. 17:1; 26:37; Mk 5;37; 14:37)
37) Peter is often the central figure relating to Jesus in dramatic Gospel scenes, i.e.walking on water.
      (M. 14; 28-32; Lk 5:1; Mk 10:28; Mt. 17:24)
38) Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24)

39) Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together; 191 times. (162
      as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas) John is next with 48. Peter is named
      approx. 60% more than any other disciple.
40) Peter's proclamation at pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritive interpretation of
      Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning membes of the "House of
      Israel", an example of 'loosing' and 'binding'.
41) Peter is the first 'charismatic' having judged authoritatively the first instance of the gift of
      tongues as genuine (Acts 2:14-21)
42) Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38)
43) Peter (presumably) takes the lead in the first recorded mass baptism. (Acts 2:41)
44) Peter commande dthe first gentile Christians to be baptised. (Acts 10: 44-48)
45) Peter was the first traveling missionary and the first to exercise what would be called "visitation
      of the churches" (Acts 9:32-38, 43). Paul didn't begin his missionary journeys until Acts 13:2.

46) Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for 15 days at the beginning of his ministry
       (Gal. 1:18) and was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Gal. 2:9) to preach to the gentiles.
47) Peter acts, by strong implication, as the chief bishop/shepherd of the Church (1Pt 5:1), since he exhorts
      all the other bishops,or 'elders'.
48) Peter interprets prophecy (2 Pt 1:16-21)
49) Peter corrects those who misuse Paul's writings (2 Pt 3:15-16).
50) Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome, according to most scholars, as its bishop, and as the Universal
      Bishop (Pope) of the early Church. "Babylon" (1 Pt. 5:13) is regarded as code for Rome.
.
 It strains credulity to think God would present Peter with such prominence in the Bible without meaning and import for for later Christian history, in particular, Church government. The papacy is the most plausible fullfillment of this. -- BAM
.
P.S. textman wrote: << Frankly BAM, I'll stack my one Ryle quote up against any list of scholars and saints that you care to devise, and your list will still be found wanting! >>
.
 Well, I can't fight insolence.   -- BAM

ANSWER2 TO BAM

 textman replys with the following critique: Dear BAM, according to my dictionary 'insolent' means "boldly rude or disrespectful". Firstly, I don't see that my considered answers to your 'quotes-list' can be considered rude or disrespectful, let alone 'boldly rude'. Secondly, here is a good example of 'boldly rude': "You have an evil heart". Oh, that was you, by the way. Or are you suggesting that you are somehow exempt from being insensitive, intolerant, and openly abusive? Therefore, it seems to me that I am NOT the one who argues from insolence and disrespect. On the contrary, I have far more respect for John Paul II than many of the supposedly outstanding Catholics I have seen. Thirdly, My name is not 'Bub'; please adress me as 'textman' or not at all ... (Thx).
.
 As for being in 'denial'; well, I fail to see how rational argument or communication can fruitfully proceed if both dialogers are quite agreed on everything. Hmmm ... How would that work?  ...  D1: Did you see BAM's list of 50 proofs?  D2: Oh, yes.  D1: But textman is NOT impressed! D2: Oh, no!  D1: textman is like a total asshole!  D2: Oh, yes!  D1: Ignorant, insolent, disrespectful, etc, etc.  D2: Most certainly.  D1: A very bigoted son of a bitch too.  D2: Yes.  D1: Why doesn't he just, as the good Christian-ng censors put it, "fuck off", eh? That's what I'd like to know. Just who the hell does he think he is, anyway?!  D2: I don't know.  D1: Me neither. ... etc. [Timeout while textman YAWNZZZ!] ... ho hum ...
.
 So anyway, I think our Dear Readers get my point, even if you don't, Dear BAM.
.
 Speaking of rational argument ... I couldn't help but notice that your impressive 'list of 50' did in no way address the matters and questions I raised in my response to your previous list of classical papist quotes. Having failed to convince anyone there, do you now hope to bludgeon us all into submission with an even longer and more authoritative list? Well, I certainly will admit that your 50-list is ... well, let us say 'overwhelming'. But I hope you will excuse me if I leave off answering them all, one by one, etc. It's not that I cannot do it, you understand; it's rather that I won't. Please forgive my rudeness, but it seems to me that if you simply ignore all the valid points and ideas that I have raised in my article 'One&Only True Rock', and my reply to your first list, ... then perhaps I can exercise the same right. Although by doing so, I no doubt run the risk of thereby 'conceding' to your greater wisdom, or otherwise just 'losing the debate'. Now I am quite willing to take this risk if it means sparing our good Readers much unecessary Pain & Grief.
.
 However, I will make a few general observations. Firstly, I do not dispute Peter's popularity as a great hero among the early churches. I do, however, dispute the interpretation of these texts on the premise that Peter=Pope! Secondly, it is your knowledge of the Scriptures and the early history of the Greek churches that is defective, not mine. 4X: 1&2Peter were not written by Peter the First Apostle. They were written decades after his death - and in his name - by disciples in the Petrine tradition churches (eg. Antioch). [Actually, this is incorrect, of course. 1Peter is by Silvanus in Asia Minor c.65-75, and 2Peter is by an anonymous prophet in Egypt c.135-45CE. - tx]
.
 In the same way, the book of Lk-Acts (it's one book in two parts) is an early history of the church written about c.115CE (probably in Rome). That is, long after the first generation of witnesses had passed on. The historical value of Lk-Acts is therefore secondary to the more authentic witnesses of the gospel of Mark (on which the Gospel of Matthew is based) and the original Pauline epistles.
.
 In other words, a historical-exegete must make distinctions between reality/history and pious legends (eg. Peter walking on water). Of course, such distinctions are quite beyond the capacity of the papal interpreters who will gladly twist anything and everything to the end of glorifying the pope, and thus distorting the faith in the process! I firmly maintain that such a skewed interpretive methodology necessarily does violence to Scripture, and thereby demonstrates a profound disrespect for the Word of God.

/ Subject > Re: One&Only True Rock / Date > 25 May 1998 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.apologetics /
.
] textman wrote: ... Of course, such distinctions are quite beyond the capacity of the papal interpreters
] who will gladly twist anything and everything to the end of glorifying the pope, and thus distorting the
] faith in the process! I firmly maintain that such a skewed interpretive methodology necessarily does
] violence to Scripture, and thereby demonstrates a profound disrespect for the Word of God.
.
> Timothy Consodine replies: Let's assume what you believe is the truth.
.
 textman answers: Dear Timothy: Yes! By all means, let us assume that! 
.
> How do you account for the fact that there are no witnesses to what you believe anywhere
> at anytime until 1600 years after Christ walked the earth?
.
 Huh! Wut? I really don't know what you mean by this; or what it is that you are suggesting here. The witnesses to what I believe were not 16 centuries removed from Jesus of Nazareth. On the contrary, they were considerably closer to him than any of the popes (ie. Peter was not a 'pope' as such). You can see my witnesses for yourself in the Gospel of Mark (the first and still greatest gospel), and in the Epistle of James!
.
> Don't you think it's a bit peculiar that Jesus Christ promises that His church would be visible to the world ...
.
 No, I don't think it peculiar at all. Every church that gathers an assembly of believers, and witnesses to the Truth (eg. Jesus is Lord) is visible to the world. What I do think is peculiar is that any church should make the arrogant claim that it alone is pleasing in the eyes of the Same One Lord!
.
> Matt 5:14 "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. 15 Nor do men
> light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house."
.
 The Woman-Catholic Church of Canada lights the lamp of 'mutual-love' and at once hides it under a bushel so that the world may NOT see the 'glory' of religious lesbianism; for this church-made sensual paradise is ONLY for the few and the favored!
.
> ... and that His church would start out very, very small and grow very, very large: Matt 13:31
> Another parable he put before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard
> seed which a man took and sowed in his field; 32 it is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has
> grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and
> make nests in its branches."
.
 This passage is speaking of the (spiritual) Kingdom of Heaven. I see no reference to the Roman Catholic Church here.  Sorry  ...  Invalid Quoting!
.
> ... and that it would be found in every nation and culture: Matt 28:19 Go therefore and make
> disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
> Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with
> you always, to the close of the age."
.
 No ref to the RCC here either.  Another invalid quote.
.
> Acts 1:8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my
> witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth.
.
 This is the great commission to preach the gospel to the world. Yet another invalid quote.
.
>  . . . yet the tenets of your faith less than 500 years old?
.
 Wherever did you get this notion? Do you take me for a member of one or another of those churches that sprang up before, during, and after the Reformation? Would you believe me if I told you that I was baptized into the Roman Catholic Church? ... No? Well, OK then; but a fact is still a fact. Anyway, the tenets of my faith are set forth in black and white in the pages of the Holy Bible!

 Dear Timothy, thx for your considered response to my previous post. In general, I found your article interesting, albeit somewhat confused. For various reasons I will not answer everything that you have written, but I will attempt to address the main points and key features of your arguments.
.
> T: Where do your witnesses in the Gospel according to Mark enumerate the 66 books which
> make up your Canon of Scripture? Come to think of it, how do you even know which books
> belong in the Bible to begin with?
.
 The Bible is a dynamic spiritual reality that grows and changes over time. It is NOT a fixed entity, as you seem to suppose. The Bible of the early Greek churches was the various Greek-language versions (eg. LXX) of the Hebrew scriptures (the canon of which was not fixed until the Council of Jamnia). These Greek scrolls were also supplemented by other sacred scriptures (eg. Enoch, Shepherd of Hermas, etc). Various local churches had their own unique versions and collections of holy books; and in no sense was there an authoritative list that defined (for all) which particular books were sacred, and which were not; that only happened on the wide scale in the fourth century. All the books that were thought holy (whether they made it into modern Bibles or not) were recognized as such by the believers who found something of supreme value in these various books. Over time the cream rose to the top, and just these books were accepted as divine by many of the local churches. Thus the Council of Nicea created the canonical list in part to inhibit the proliferation of third-rate holy books; and also to refute heretical canons (eg. Marcion). Therefore, it is the fullness of the Judeo-Christian tradition that determines which books belong in the Bible.
.
> <snip> Mt 16:18-19 speaks of church leadership; it does not speak of the Roman papacy.
> Jesus spoke Aramaic ...
.
 Actually, Jesus spoke Aramaic and Greek! But no scholar will admit this because it is widely assumed that if Jesus could speak the same Greek language that everyone around him spoke, then obviously he must be a heretic too, for the True Lord would never ever soil himself by learning the language of the day! Wut? A Greek-speaking Messiah? Oh perish the thought! Please consider the implications of all this ...
.
> <snip quotes>
.
 These quotes define the main features of Christian leadership. They are NOT a recipe for the papacy! Moreover, if Peter was universally recognized and acknowledged as 'the supreme pontiff' - as you claim - how do you account for the fact that James (the Lord's brother) was the pre-eminent leader of the Jerusalem church? Was not his claim to leadership based on the fact of blood relation (as it was among all the OT priests)? And if Peter was the first pope, how could Paul dare to criticize him in public for his waffling? Why would he do such a thing if paul knew that Peter had more authority than he himself had? Would you say that Paul did not know that Peter was Pope (and thus had supreme authority over all the churches)? How do you explain James' and Paul's ignorance and/or disrespect? Will you deny the clear testimony of the scriptures in order to 'get around' these facts?
.
> The Christians of the post apostolic age recognized the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter
> and the supreme pontiff just as Christ taught in Matt 16:18-19. St. Clement, who was ordained by
> St. Peter (and who is mentioned in Phil :3) was the third successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome. He
> is shown in history to have excercised the authority of his office (cf. Matt 16:19) to end a schism in
> the church at Corinth around the year 80: Pope St. Clement I, c. 80 A.D.
> THE FIRST EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS <snip>
.
 Well, since Peter had died a full generation before Clement's Corinithian Epistle, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that the latter was 'ordained' by the former. (Moreover, your date for that document is decades too early!) In the same way, there is no evidence that Clement ended the schism in question. If anything, the letter had little or no impact on the church of Corinth, as they were in no way subject to the authority of foreigners! In the same way, the reference in Phillipians is way too early to be a reference to your Clement (the so-called third pope).
.
> ... There is no evidence available that shows that the Christians in the post-apostolic age held
> any other interpretation.   <snip>
.
 The evidence is there, of course. You just don't care to see it; let alone acknowledge it. ... By the way: Is this the same Tertullian who was declared a heretic by the so-called orthodox?
.
 Is Irenaeus' paraphrase better or more authoritative than the scriptures? "Upon you, he [JC] says, I will build my Church ... " But this is manifestly NOT what Matthew reports Jesus as saying! This is Irenaeus' interpretation of those verses, but this does not prove that his interpretation is correct.
.
> <snip>
.
 ... "most solid of rocks" ... HA! Who are you trying to fool? Most solid of jellyfish, maybe!
.
> <snip> If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith?
.
 Does not the Lord himself defend and approve of the strangers who preach the gospel? Why then should you give heed to Cyprian before Jesus?
.
> <snip> The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church.
.
 Oh really? And what of all those assemblies that are not fortunate enough to have a priest? According to your theology, they have no right to consider themselves a part of the universal church. Wut? No believer who is not "joined to a priest" is fit to be a Christian? What a GROSS DISTORTION of the Faith!!!
.
> <snip> "[Pope] Stephen [I] ... boasts of the place of his episcopate,
.
 Yes, the popes are certainly good at boasting about many things. But it is humility that is the mark of the True Believer. Yet the bishops are anything but humble. How else could they suppose that their words are more the Word of God than scripture!?! Such an obcene claim comes only from egotistical arrogance and a monumental vanity!
.
> <snip>
.
 ... "I am the vine ...". This 'I' is Jesus, not the Pope. Therefore, abide in Him, and be one ... In HIM!
.
> <snip> If there is any such thing as "The Woman-Catholic Church,"then they are just as protestant
> as you are because they are not in full communion with the successor of Peter (Pope John Paul II)
.
 I think you may be right about this. Certainly the Faith of the Canadian Church bears only an outward resemblance to the Faith of the Universal Church. Yet the priests and bishops who thus distort the faith to favor women (and distain men) surely consider themselves to be true and faithful and very much in communion with Rome (despite their many 'reservations' about patriarchy).
.
> <snip> What teaching authority do you have to determine what is invalid quoting and what isn't?
.
 Only the authority of logic, reason, common sense, and zeal for the Lord and his Holy Word. Of course, this is no authority at all after the manner of 'the power of binding and loosing'!
.
> Besides that, it is Jesus Christ who uses the term [ie. Kingdom of Heaven] to describe His church on earth.
.
 That's right. But his church is much bigger than the pope's church. Christ's church includes all who believe on his name, and obey his commands; whereas the pope's church includes only those who believe that 'the great priest' of Rome can save them.
.
> <snip>
.
 The Kingdom of Heaven and the Roman Catholic Church are NOT one and the same thing. In the same way, if Mt 16:18-19 are an accurate and authentic account of Jesus' actual words (highly unlikely in my opinion), why did no one ever hear of them before c.85CE (when the Gospel of Matthew was written)? If these words are as all-important as you and Rome make them out to be, do you not think that the Holy Spirit would have made darn sure that they appeared in the Gospel of Mark first? But perhaps you think that Mark's is a 'protestant' gospel? After all, he (like James and Paul) does not seem to be aware that Peter was the supreme pontiff ...
.
> <snip> If you are Catholic, your religion was founded in the year 33
> by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.
.
 The year 33CE saw the Crucifixion & Resurrection of our Lord; but faith in Jesus as the Messiah preceded both of these momentous events (as the scriptures testify). But if the Roman Catholic Church (being the same unchanging church today as yesteryear) was established in 33CE, why is it that the words 'supreme pontiff' and 'Roman Catholic Church' appear nowhere in the Bible? Surely this is a colossal oversight on the part of the Holy Spirit! Ah yes; if only the priests and bishops could re-write the scriptures according to their exacting specifications ... then (and only then) would the Holy Book be unambiguously priestly and Catholic! But it is not ones ecclesial tradition (and how old it is) that determines the authenticity of one faith ... only love can do that! What a believer chooses to call his/herself is irrelevant next to the far more important matter of obeying the Lord's commands. ...
.
 That's 'His commands', Timothy, not 'the pope's commands'!
.
> <snip> Which Gospel? The one Christ preached or the one which sprang up in western Europe in the
> 16th century that has spawned into 28,000 different variations?
.
 The gospel is the good news about Jesus Christ, Our Lord & Savior & One Teacher & One High Priest! Only in the Book can the full truth of the Gospel be seen undistorted by the self-serving fantasies of sadistic priests, twisted teachers (ie. the enlightened and progressive ones), and corrupt leaders.
.
> <snip> How do you know which books belong in the Bible when in fact the Bible nowhere expresses
> or implies that there is a Canon of Scripture?
.
 My answer to this question is set forth above.
Please re-read it carefully before asking this question yet again ...

/ Re: One&Only True Rock / 28 May 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
 textman writes: Dear P42, I'll break my 'no answering non-participants' rule just this once:
.
> Padraic42 say: The Catholic Church is the only church that can claim to have been founded by Christ personally.
.
 Yeah sure, but the only problem with that is that it's a BOGUS CLAIM!
.
> Under her teaching office, the Catholic Church preserves the Word of God.
.
 Hey! Is this a reference to the Sacred Scriptures? The only reason I ask is because whenever this phrase is used by Catholic apologists you can never be sure exactly what it is that is being indicated. This is because the RC definition of 'Word of God' is very - shall we say? - expansive. It CAN mean the Bible; but it can also mean the Tradition, the teachings of the bishops, and even things like the Heart of the Diocese. All this is not so much 'preservation' as 'DISTORTION & DISSOLUTION'!

/ Re: One&Only True Rock / 29 May 1998 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.apologetics, talk.religion.misc, alt.blasphemy /
.
] textman previously say: BIBLE&BYTES:  THE ONE & ONLY TRUE ROCK!
.
> Timothy Consodine wrote: Why is Abraham referred to as "rock" in Isaiah?
>
> Is 51:1 "Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you who seek the Lord; look to the rock from
> which you were hewn, and to the quarry from which you were digged. 2 Look to Abraham your father
> and to Sarah who bore you; for when he was but one I called him, and I blessed him and made him
> many.   -- http://www.flash.net/~timothyc/
.
 Dear Timothy, looks like just a simple metaphor to me. After all, Abraham is the first father of faith. I do not think it inappropriate that the bible should refer to him as rock and quarry. He is the rock from which all believers are hewn. The 'rock of faith', if you will. In other words, he is 'da man'.

/ Re: One&Only True Rock / 30 May 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> Padraic42 wrote: I forget where I found this. "If you find someone who does not yet believe in the Gospel,
> what would you answer him when he says, 'I do not believe'? Indeed, I would not believe in the gospel
> myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so." - St. Augustine, Bishop  /  What's
> Your Authority for That?
.
 Dear Padraic42, this article was interesting, informative, and entertaining. Sometimes you surprise me. HA! Mind you, I don't quite see the relevance of it in this particular thread; but hey, I'm not complaining. ... Is that question above meant for me? Firstly, let me say that although I do have tremendous respect for Augustine, that particular quote you cite is undoubtedly the dumbest thing he ever wrote! I certainly do not believe the Gospel because of the ALLEGED authority of the Catholic Church. No indeed! I believe the Gospel because its truth impresses itself upon my mind and heart and soul. Is it impossible to accept the truth without first accepting some outside authority that forces it upon you? Get real! The Spirit of Truth is quite sufficient if only you can open your heart to receive Her!

 
/ Topic > Re: One&Only True Rock / Date > 31May 1998 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.apologetics /
.
 Dear Timothy, your rebuttals leave much to be desired. I have neither the time nor the patience to start on a mountain of research in order to answer your (mostly silly) queries. And if you think that it is the popes who determined the canon, then you are seriously misinformed! The canon was formed by the Christians who knew and used the Holy Books. The bishops merely acknowledged this fact! As to Nicea, I strongly urge you to investigate the doings of St Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria. But even then there were canonical lists in existence long before your pope Damasus.
.
] tx: And if Peter was the first pope, how could Paul dare to criticize him in public for his waffling?
.
> TC: Was it a matter of doctrine, discipline, custom or personal behavior?
.
 If you read the texts of Paul that describe these events, it will be apparent that it was a matter of all four!!!
.
> If your interpretation of the scriptures were true, then why are there no witnesses whatsoever bearing
> identical testimony at any time or any place prior to the Protestant Reformation?
.
 The validity of my interpretations depends solely on the fact that they respect the truth of scripture and the evidence of scripture. I do NOT depend on the interpretation of others, whether protestant or catholic, whether modern or ancient. Having said that, I will add that my work as a scripture scholar certainly could not proceed without the previous labours of countless scholars and scientists. The fact that there is no 'identical testimony' from previous centuries is irrelevant. For example, the fact that the Gospel of Mark was the first to be written is knowledge that was only lately gained from the modern study scientific of the Bible. And even then, there are STILL some scholars who actually deny this. In doing so they reduce the achievements of modern scholarship to a grabbag of various opinions. Thus if you don't like the idea that Mark came first, you are free to reject it and find some scholars who agree with you. Frankly, I think that most bible scholars are little better than baboons flipping through the pages looking for nuts and berries. My approach to scripture proceeds on a more firm foundation: respect for the text!
.
] ... In the same way, the reference in Phillipians is way too early to be a reference to your
] Clement (the so-called third pope).
.
> Actually, your assertion has no basis in fact.
.
 Actually, it does. It is widely recognized that Phil is among the earliest of Paul's Epistles. This would place its composition somewhere around the years 52-55CE. No doubt Clement was still sucking on his mama's tit at that time!
.
 By the way, your quotes are excessive and largely irrelevant. In future, I would appreciate it if you could restrain your quoting impulses. I much prefer to dialogue with people who are actually on this channel, rather than folks long dead. People who quote in the extreme give me the impression that they are unable to think for themselves.  Think about it ... if you can.

/ Re: One&Only True Rock / 2 June 1998 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.apologetics, talk.religion.misc, alt.blasphemy /
.
> Timothy say: Then why don't you accept 'da man' whom Jesus appointed to lead His flock on earth?
.
 Dear Timothy, I do accept Peter. I do not accept the foolish notion that the Popes are the reincarnation of him. Peter was not the only leader of the church even in his day. Nor is the Pope the only leader today. In the same way, Peter was NOT the best leader; nor is the Pope the best that the Church has today. So why should you suppose that 'every knee shall bow' to the Pope? As for 'feeding my sheep' ... Why does the church feed the people stones when it is bread and meat that they require. The pope seems to think that watered down milk (ie. the dissolution of the Gospel) is sufficient. It is NOT! Let the people hear the Gospel, the whole gospel ... the gospel that demands more of Christians than that they should put their faith in priests to save them. I tell you truly: NO PRIEST CAN SAVE YOU if you close your heart and mind to the Lord. A mountain of thin plastic wafers, and an ocean of sacramental wine will avail you nothing if your hearts are hard and your hands soaked in blood!!!

/ Subject > Re: One&Only True Rock / 3 June 1998 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.apologetics, talk.religion.misc, alt.blasphemy /
.
] textman previously wrote: Dear Timothy, I do accept Peter. I do not accept the foolish notion that
] the Popes are the reincarnation of him.
.
> Timothy C. Consodine replys: What the heck is the "reincarnation of him" supposed to mean?
.
 textman answers: Is this not what is ultimately meant when the bishops say that they are the 'successors' of the apostles? Do they not claim a magical link to Peter? Does not the papal supremacy involve an actual appropriation of the essence and being of Peter? If they are not somehow the re-presentation of Peter, then how can the so-called 'keys' that were given to him be theirs to have and to hold?
.
] Peter was not the only leader of the church even in his day. Nor is the Pope the only leader today.
] In the same way, Peter was NOT the best leader; nor is the Pope the best that the Church has today.
.
> Moses wasn't necessarily the "best" leader in his day -- but read Numbers 16 in regards to those
> whom rebel against the ones whom God ordains . . .
.
 Yes, I read it. The earth swallowed them up, and the fire consumed them one and all. Very nasty! It's a good thing for the bishops that the Heavenly Father is no longer so fierce in his judgment.
.
] So why should you suppose that 'every knee shall bow' to the Pope?
.
> Where do you come up with this nonsense anyway?
.
 Does not the pope require that ALL Christians should acknowledge his primacy and authority? When you go and have an audience with the papal prince, are you not required to 'bend the knee' as a sign of respect, as a sign that you accept his superiority? The church already has one Lord and Master over all (ie. the Son of Man). It does not require another. Bend your knee to any other, and you betray Jesus.
.
] As for 'feeding my sheep' ... why does the church feed the people stones when it is bread and meat
] that they require. The pope seems to think that watered down milk (ie. the dissolution of the Gospel)
] is sufficient. It is NOT! Let the people hear the Gospel, the whole gospel
.
> That's the whole point textman -- you don't have the whole gospel. You have not heard the whole gospel
> and your personal relationship with Jesus is incomplete without the Holy Eucharist and full communion
> with His church on earth:
.
 But Timothy, it is not by my choice that I am no longer in communion with the Church. They willfully and sadistically threw me out, abandoned me, and exiled me. But first these wise and compassionate ones sat in judgment upon me and found me wanting. They judged me unfit to be a Catholic, else why should they so violently 'dismiss' me from the Heart of the Diocese? If my very presence is a vexation unto them, how can I pretend that I am still in communion with the Church at large? They acted on behalf of the Church, and so it is the Church as a whole that has despised and rejected me, and cast me out! This is how the gospel is practiced at the Heart of the Diocese ...
.
> John 6:52-59   <snip>
.
> Luke 22:19-23   <snip>
.
> 1 Cor 10:16-17   <snip>
.
 "When you come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to trample my courts? Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination unto me; new moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies, -- I cannot endure iniquity and the solemn assembly. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they are become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not listen: for your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; and put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do good; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, defend the fatherless, plead for the widow" (Isaiah 1:12-17).
.
> 1 Cor 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night
> when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my
> body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper,
> saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of
> me." 26 for as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he
> comes. 27 whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the lord in an unworthy manner will
> be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
.
 I do not require rituals to remind myself of the Lord. He is with me always; for that is what it means to be a slave of the Lord.
.
] the gospel that demands more of Christians than that they should put their faith in priests to save them.
.
> Who the heck believes "faith in priests" will save them?
.
 Do not the People of God suppose that hearing the Word is sufficient? Do they not suppose that the thin plastic wafer makes them holy? Do not the People suppose that God asks no more of them then that they sacrifice one hour a week to him? Do they not think that no more than this is required? Do they not trust the priests to intercede on their behalf and make sure for them that God is pleased with their half-hearted faith, and their lukewarm and oh-so-pious practice of religion? Do not the priests encourage them to think all this? "For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant, saith the Lord. Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have shown partiality in your instruction" (Malachi 2:7-9).
.
] I tell you truly: NO PRIEST CAN SAVE YOU if you close your heart and mind to the Lord. A mountain of
] thin plastic wafers, and an ocean of sacramental wine will avail you nothing if your hearts are hard
] and your hands soaked in blood!!!
.
> What happens to obstinate people "in your boat?"
.
 Huh? My boat? ...  I am not rich enough to own any boats.
.
> John 5:39 You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they
> that bear witness to me; 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.
.
 Does the 'me' in verse 40 refer to the pope? How exactly are you applying these verses to me? Clarification is required here ...
.
> 2 Peter 3:15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote
> to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some
> things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they
> do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried
> away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.
.
 "the error of lawless men" ... you intend this as a reference to me, as a definition of who I am and what I do. But I am bound under the Law of Christ, as it is revealed in the scriptures. The same scriptures that nowhere speaks of canon law and its necessity for salvation. It is the priests who bind up the People with the laws and regulations of priestcraft. It is the priests who water down the gospel and treat the assembly as one treats an eight year old child. The Church teaches its soon-to-be priests not to write homilies that are beyond the mentality of children. How then can the People be given the fullness of the Gospel? You think that the eucharist is sufficient unto salvation.
.
 Yet Paul himself tells us that we put ourselves at risk when we approach the Table: "27 whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord." Is this not precisely what the hard-hearted ones do when they eat and drink the Lord, and yet hate their brother? As for myself, perhaps this verse is more appropriate: "The law of truth was in his mouth, and unrighteousness was not found on his lips: he walked with me in peace and uprightness, and did turn many away from iniquity" (Malachi 2:6)