the church

chrysostom

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
DavidK said:
How do you know your interpretation of that verse is correct?
Click to expand...

this is where common sense helps -
there have been many disagreements in the christian world -
it just makes sense that Jesus would leave someone in charge who could settle the argument -
whatever this person decides would be accepted in heaven -
what else could it mean?
 
DavidK

DavidK

New member
chrysostom said:
this is where common sense helps -
there have been many disagreements in the christian world -
it just makes sense that Jesus would leave someone in charge who could settle the argument -
whatever this person decides would be accepted in heaven -
what else could it mean?
Click to expand...

For starters, it could mean that He gave the power to bind and loose to Peter, but not exclusively.

How do you know that bibilical account of Jesus naming him "rock" and giving him the power to bind and loose is true?
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
chrysostom said:
this is where common sense helps -
there have been many disagreements in the christian world -
it just makes sense that Jesus would leave someone in charge who could settle the argument -
whatever this person decides would be accepted in heaven -
what else could it mean?
Click to expand...
That's what I'd call RCC "common sense".

If we're talking about understanding the obvious, the fact that God raised up Paul (that other apostle) when He already had twelve apostles before should tell you something. But you don't listen.
 
chrysostom

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
DavidK said:
For starters, it could mean that He gave the power to bind and loose to Peter, but not exclusively.

How do you know that bibilical account of Jesus naming him "rock" and giving him the power to bind and loose is true?
Click to expand...

whoa! - it is in the bible - right?
what would Jesus give to peter that wouldn't be needed after peter?
 
chrysostom

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Right Divider said:
That's what I'd call RCC "common sense".

If we're talking about understanding the obvious, the fact that God raised up Paul (that other apostle) when He already had twelve apostles before should tell you something. But you don't listen.
Click to expand...
what does it tell you? -
why did he end up in rome?
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
chrysostom said:
what does it tell you? -
why did he end up in rome?
Click to expand...
You mean instead of Peter?

Paul ended up in Rome because that was the center of the primary secular government of the day. It was the ROMAN government and Paul was a ROMAN citizen. Paul appealed his case to Caesar and guess where Caesar lived. ROME. As a matter of fact, Paul was his ROMAN name.

There is no historical or Biblical record of Peter ever being in Rome.
 
chrysostom

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Right Divider said:
You mean instead of Peter?

Paul ended up in Rome because that was the center of the primary secular government of the day. It was the ROMAN government and Paul was a ROMAN citizen. Paul appealed his case to Caesar and guess where Caesar lived. ROME. As a matter of fact, Paul was his ROMAN name.

There is no historical or Biblical record of Peter ever being in Rome.
Click to expand...
where do you think peter ended up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top