02-26-2007, 02:00 PM
|
#275
|
Had an idea!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos
Well you would seriously be wrong. Some Christians do believe it. I'm no expert on Catholicism so I can't say they do believe it, but that's what I've been led to believe.
I'm sure other posters can confirm or deny this.
|
Do we really want to start a debate about the Catholics?
Here, read this...
Quote:
Many argue vehemently against the concept that Jesus was declaring Peter to be the rock. While some of these alternate interpretations are indeed plausible, they are motivated, at least in part, by a faulty assumption. The faulty assumption is that if Peter is the rock of Matthew 16:18, this makes the Roman Catholic Church the one true church. Admittedly, the Roman Catholic Church uses this very argument. On the contrary, Peter being the rock in Matthew 16:18 is meaningless in giving the Roman Catholic Church any authority. Scripture nowhere records Peter being in Rome. Scripture nowhere describes Peter as being supreme over the other apostles. The New Testament does not describe Peter as being “all authoritative leader” of the early Christian church. Peter was not the first pope, and Peter did not start the Roman Catholic Church. The origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Peter, or any other apostle. If Peter truly was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, it would be in full agreement with what Peter taught (Acts chapter 2, 1 Peter, 2 Peter).
|
|
|
|