The nature of the church!

[TB2]

No it depends on the Holy Spirit Jn 16:13
And more specifically how something is defined
By holy apostolic decree from the chair of Peter to the universal church
Not what one says getting out of the car or at the diner table
And there is NO NEW DOCTRINE

Truth must be revealed by God thru Christ to His church (the apostles Jude 1:3) then must be proposed by the church, (Matt 28:19 gal 3:23) without error by the Holy Spirit! (Jn 16:13) one faith (eph 4:5) the faith delivered to the apostles (Jude 1:3)

The holy church found by Christ on Peter and the apostles have the duty to Guard the deposit of faith and to explain it faithfully.

Pope Agatho 7c

This Apostolic Church never turned from the way of truth nor held any kind of error. It is imperative that nothing of the truths which have been defined be lessened, nothing altered, nothing added, but that they be preserved intact in word and meaning. This is the true rule of faith.

Thanks

What I meant is historically we see bishops over independent churches recognized as an extension of the 'catholic' church by Ignatius in the second century (centuries before papal primacy)

 

[Augustin56]

.
" Petros " is a shifting, rolling, or insecure stone - pieces of a rock - pebbles a small stone or small rock

" Petros " is simply another word for - pieces of grit - small nugget or pieces of gravel or pellets

this is the meaning of the name of Peter in the Bible - Peter literally means - a piece of a rock - a pebble a small stone or small rock as in small nugget or piece of gravel = as smaller pieces of a large rock


" Petra " is a boulder or a huge mass of rock as - a solid, immovable massive rock.

these two words are not interchangeable in the scriptures - Peter is never called " Petra " - and Petra is never called Peter.

there is no way for Catholics to support the supremacy of the Pope as ordained by Jesus other than relying upon tradition alone.


in fact Peter is not addressing Roman Catholic Priests or Popes nor addressing Rome in 1Pe 1: 1 - 5

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

:5 You also, as living stones, - are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Anointing.

the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, are as living stones, - whom are building up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices,
Peter is saying that all believers even the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

all believers are as living stones - building up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood
the entire concept of the Roman Catholic Church, is this not pure supposition and assumption that has absolutely nothing in scripture to validate itself - like circular reasoning

Does not the entire premise of Papal Infallibility demonstrate a display of circular reasoning.

who or what decides exactly what teachings, doctrines and comments are truly delegated from the chair of St Peter

what is it that suddenly enthrones or dethrones the Vatican Primates from this chair - from one second to the next ?

 

[Augustin56]

Jesus didn't speak Greek to the Apostles. He spoke to them in the daily language of the region, Aramaic. In Aramanic, there is but one word for "rock," kepha. Greek, like many languages (not English), assign gender to nouns. The difference between Petros and Petra is grammatical in Matthew. It would have been grammatically improper to assign a feminine noun to a male human being (Peter). And even so, at the time this incident happened, there was no difference in meaning between the two words. They both meant "rock." The supposed difference was found in some obscure poetry two centuries earlier. But that use had since subsided.

The office of Pope was established by Christ in Matt. 16:18-19. Every first century Jew knew that the king always had a second-in-command, who ran the kingdom in the king's absence (away at war, visiting another kingdom, etc.) or when he was incapacitated (sick, injured, etc.). This second-in-command would rule in the king's place, and the king, upon his return, would uphold whatever the second-in-command had ruled. (See an example of this office in Isaiah 22:22.) This position of second-in-command was dynastic. If he died, then another was appointed in his place. In other words, it was an on-going position. (Like the Pope.) The symbol of the office of the second-in-command was a large (2-3 ft.) key or sometimes two keys, which he carried over his shoulder to let people know his authority. When Jesus gave Peter the "keys to the kingdom" He was establishing such a second-in-command position, because Jesus (Our King!), was going to ascend to heaven and He needed someone to run the Church here on earth until He returned.

 

[juxtaposeraphim]

.
.
The Hebrew word for ROCK is - צוּר - Tsûr

The Hebrew word for STONE is - אֶבֶן - 'Eben


If Jesus would had used sign language or even a picture diagram to express to Peter his message - the Greek manuscripts transmit this message to the reader that Peter was described as a small stone to build upon the revelation Peter received and this revelation is the ROCK upon which The Assembly Of God Is Built Upon .

Peter perfectly understood the message of Jesus to write in Greek - 1Pe 1:1

:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
:5 You also, AS LIVING STONES, - YOU ALSO - are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood


There is NOT a single shred of any evidence that the Roman Catholic can provide to show that Jesus or his followers spoke Aramaic


IN FACT when Rome crucified Jesus, Pontius Pilate had a literal sign made and the sign he wrote the words

" JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS "


Pilot wanted every single last Jew, Greek and Italian to read, know and understand that he had sentenced to death
THE KING OF THE JEWS

Pilot did not write this message in ARAMAIC, it would have been meaningless and a waste of time, Aramaic was not a common language among any significant number of people near Jesus -
Hebrew was the language they all understood


Joh 19:20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in HEBREW, AND GREEK, AND LATIN.

All of the evidence demonstrates that Jesus and his followers spoke HEBREW and that GREEK was a language of the educated Jews,

When Paul addressed the crowd of HEBREW people mixed among foreigners who were Greeks and Romans he spoke directly to address the Hebrews in the mixed crowd - " IN THE HEBREW TONGUE " (Acts 21:40)

:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, HE SPAKE UNTO THEM IN THE HEBREW TONGUE

.. in the book of Act 26:14 we hear JESUS speaking to PAUL out of the heavens.
Paul said I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying " IN THE HEBREW TONGUE E ", ---

JESUS FROM HEAVEN SPOKE IN HEBREW

In fact Aramaic was not the spoken language of the day.

From the ancient world we have over 215 different variety of thousands of coins from the first century period, during the time of Yahashua, of all of these thousands of coins { OVER 215 different varieties of coins " " { thousands of coins } " " we know that only a single 1 of those coins is inscribed with ARAMAIC - And only one side of this single coin that was found - is in Aramaic

As if this one single coin inscribed in ARAMAIC was introduce as practical joke because the Jews did not commonly speak ARAMAIC nor did they commonly use ARAMAIC in their writings nor upon anything that held any significance for public consumption - there are thousands of coins inscribed with ARAMAIC from the region of Arabia, it is most likely that of the 215 variety of thousands of coins inscribed with Hebrew - this single 1 coin in ARAMAIC was brought into Israel from the region of Arabian.

Jews would have no reason to make coins inscribed with ARAMAIC - they spoke Hebrew

​

 

[juxtaposeraphim]

.

Furthermore

Every single time throughout History when the Jews are forced to convert their coinage and money system over to who has conquered and defeated them they always find that Hebrew was the only language inscribed on their coins.

Just look at the website. http://www.josephus.org/coins.htm
Aramaic was never dominantly spoken as a language in Israel and Aramaic has NEVER ADVANCED INTO MODERN WORLD because it never was a part of the modern world at any time through history . Aramaic can be used as nothing more but as a bridge language to aid in different middle eastern dialects to understand one another - nothing more.

We have the huge amount of dead sea scrolls 40,000 scrolls and fragments in the dead sea scrolls from the first century period.
Of the 40,000 scrolls and fragments in the dead sea scrolls - HOW MANY DO YOU THINK WERE IN THE ARAMAIC.

ONE SINGLE SOLITARY SCROLL AND JUST A FEW SMALL TINY FRAGMENTS - the other 39,999 dead sea scrolls are in Hebrew


THE ARAMIAC HOAX - has been the pagan attempt by Muslims, Catholics, Trinitarians and the surrounding pagan nations of Israel trying to hijack and pervert the Hebrew language..

instead of trusting in God who wrote the scriptures in Hebrew,,, they pretend that a slang mockery called Aramaic for Jews is how that the Manuscripts are to be RE - interpreted and interpolated..... No one speaks Aramaic today and expects to communicate with anyone but a clown act on Lysergic Acid Diethylamide or someone trying to imitate someone who has a speech impediment.

A Catholic or a Muslim or a Trinitarian will forever try to prop up a pitch and chuck out language with a pitch and chuck out religious theology with pitch and chuck translations. In fact, any Jew speaking to one another in the heart of Israel in Aramaic as a daily language would have been the unfortunate product of a very poor education or some poor misfortunate innocent person who has a mental problem that they are unable to speak the common Hebrew.​

 

[donadams]

What I meant is historically we see bishops over independent churches recognized as an extension of the 'catholic' church by Ignatius in the second century (centuries before papal primacy)

When do you think the primacy began?