The Gospel of Judas (Your views)

[nomadix]

---

dacs:

Read Romans 14:1-3.Â* Are you saying that the papal authority does not come from God?Â* If not, then you are being biblical.Â* If it does, then what it the problem?

Romans 14:1-3
1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

papal authority? asa dapita sa verses

Dacs, who wrote the book of Romans?

How would you then interpret Hebrews 13:17?Â* The letter to the Hebrews is addressed to the Hebrews who are now Christians.Â* Who are the leaders referred to here?Â* Is not St. Peter part of these 'leaders'?
Leaders are ordained by God.Â* Even the Apostle John acknowledged the function of leadership in 1 John 4:6.

yes, the book of Hebrews is addressed to the Hebrews who are Christians. taking in to consideration aboutÂ* Christians who are gentiles, are gentiles who are Christians not incuded as well?Â* of course they are included! (i'm not trying to be funny by answering my own question. just in case you'd ask me these dreaded words for the serious ( Are you kidding me?)


Heb 13:17
17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.


When considering any passage in the Bible, it always needs to be compared with similar teachings and with any possible examples shown. This verse is often misused. Clearly, the passage was talking about submitting to leadership. this doesn't mean nga si Peter ra ang ginapasabot ani nga leader. as what you said, Leaders are ordained by God.

( say for example-- was King Saul (the first king of Israel before David) ordained by God? NO! he was chosen by the people. we don't have to dig much of the history of King Saul, since i was just citing an example about God's ordinance and about leadership--God chose David though to become one of the greatest leader of Israel.)

and Peter, yes he's one of Christ's apostles and a leader. but i don't take any account of what you just said that

Tertullian once wrote of Peter in this manner :

"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called, 'the rock on which the church should be built,' who also obtained 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' with the power of 'loosing and binding in heaven and on earth'?"(On Prescription against Heretics, A.D. 200)

And I say to thee. thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:1

The purpose of this study is to determine from Scriptural evidence, who Christ really established His church upon. When we arrive at a definite conclusion from Scripture, as to who the "Rock" Christ is speaking of in Matthew 16:18 is, we will then have our answer.

Much rests upon the meaning of this verse. It is far too important to be taken lightly. It would be very unwise to jump to conclusions, judge by appearances or take anything for granted. Too much is at stake to chance arriving at the wrong meaning. If Peter is the rock who Christ established His church upon, then most Protestants today are neglecting and failing to give recognition where it is due. However, if Peter is not the rock who Christ established His church upon, then someone is assuming that Peter and his successors were given an authority which in God's sight does not actually exist.

The positive method and evidence which we are about to make use of, should give to anyone who is willing to take God at His word, the answer to this question, beyond a shadow of a doubt. First of all, let us determine whether or not we can arrive at more than one meaning to this verse. If it can appear to have more than one meaning, then it is a verse of Scripture which requires interpretation. You say that Peter is the rock. Another will say, no, that Christ is the rock. So we have two possiblities. This of course places the verse in a position of one that requires interpretation. Now let us go from there.

The following is considered by many to be the best known and accepted method for arriving at the correct interpretation of Scripture. When confronted with any verse of Scripture which can be interpreted with more than one meaning, then the verse in question, must be considered in the light of "ALL OTHER" Scriptures throughout the Bible which pertain directly to the subject in question. By way of illustration, it is much like assembling the pieces of a jig saw puzzle. One piece of the puzzle in itself usually does not reveal very much. In the puzzle it has a definite place and can only be correctly used in that one place, where it fits. However, when we set about joining other pieces directly connected with this single piece, the picture becomes easier to understand. Depending upon the number of pieces correctly joined together, it will determine how much of the picture will be clearly understood.

Now let us apply this thinking to the Scriptures. Any verse of Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit and contained in the Bible, has one particular meaning by its Author. God, who is the Author of the Bible, had one definite meaning for everything He said and for which He inspired writers of the books of the Bible to write. At the same time, we are aware of the fact that God never contradicts Himself. Also that the Word of God in itself, cannot contain error. All true Christians uphold the inerrancy of the Scriptures.

These facts, again comparing with our illustration, would be the equivalent of this; although, not knowing exactly where each piece fits, yet we have the assurance and guarantee by God, that all pieces do belong to the puzzle. Also that each has its correct place, according to the intention of its Author. By joining other Scriptures pertaining directly to this subject, from throughout the Bible, to the one in question, the Bible MAKES ITSELF CLEAR AS TO ITS MEANING. Truly it may be said that Scirptures (plural) interprets Scripture (singular). In other words. whatever God says in one place in the Bible, will usually be repeated, confirmed, and in perfect harmony in other places tbroughout the Bible.

The only positive way to arrive at a meaning which we can be absolutely certain is correct, is to use only parts which belong in the picture. In interpretation, personal opinion, human reasoning, logic, assuming or judging by appearances only, is like putting foreign pieces belonging to another puzzle, into the picture. They can never possibly fit correctly. They cause confusion. They deceive and detract from the true meaning. Lets face it, we cannot expect to be able to understand what God's Word says unless we become thoroughly familiar with its contents. For the Christian, nothing can equal earnest, diligent, consistent, prayerful study of God's Word to prepare him for this task. It is highly desirable to be so familiar and absorbed in the contents of the Bible that along with the leading of the Holy Spirit, thc Christian may clearly see where and how the truths obviously fit together to form sound Christian doctrine.

Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (II Timothy 2:15)

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in Righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (II Timofhy 3:16, 17)

Now we should be prepared to apply this method, in order to find God's answer to our question. Once again our question. In Matthew 16:18 is the "Rock" upon which Christ established His church Peter? Or is the "Rock" Christ? God's answer:

For other foundation NO ONE can lay, but that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus. (I Corinthians 3:11)

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST). (I Corinthians 10:4).

Jesus said to them, "Did ye never read in the Scriptures, The stone which the builders rejectcd, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?" (Matthew 21:42) (Compare with Psalm 117:21, 23)

For they stumbled or the stumbling-stone, as it is written, "Behold I lay in Sion, a stumbling-stone and a ROCK of offence: and whosoever believeth on him (Christ) shall not be ashamed." (Romans 9:33)

Let us see what the apostle, St. Peter, had to say concerning this.

To whom coming (Christ), as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men but chosen of God, and precious,

Wherefore also it is contained in the Scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious; and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe He ispreciou: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, and, a stone of stumbling, and a ROCK of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: (I Peter 2:4. 6-

This is The stone which was set at naught of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: For there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Also the words of St. Peter, speaking of Jesus Christ, as recorded in Acts 4:11, 12)

Turning to the Old Testament we find the following:

The Lord is my ROCK, and my fortress, and my deliverer. My God, is the ROCK of refuge. Psalm 18:2, 94:22.

God was their ROCK, and the high God their redeemer. Psalm 78:35.

Unto Thee will I cry, O LORD, MY ROCK; Psalm 28:1.

Bow down Thy thine ear to me; deliver me speedily: be Thou my strong ROCK, FOR A HOUSE of defense to SAVE me. for Thou art my ROCK and my FORTRESS; therefore for Thy name's sake lead me, and guide me. Psalm 31:2,3).

I will say unto God my ROCK, why hast Thou forgotten me? Psalm 41:l0.

Lead me to the ROCK that is higher than I Psalms 61:2

He Only is my ROCK and my salvation; He is my defense; I shall not be moved. In GOD is my salvation and my glory: THE ROCK of my strength, and my refuge, is in God. Trust in him at all times, ye people, Pour out your heart before him; God is a refuge for us. Selah Psalm 62:6-8

To shew that the Lord is upright: He is my ROCK, and there is no unrighteousness in Him. Psalm92:15.

but the Lord is my defense; and MY GOD IS THE ROCK of my refuge. Psalm 94:22.

O Come, let us sing unto THE LORD; let us make a joyful noise to THE ROCK of our salvation. Psalm 95:1.

The stone which the builders refused is become the head of the corner. This is the Lord's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes. Psalm 118:22, 23.

Therefore thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Isaiah 28:16.

Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto OUR GOD! He is THE ROCK, His work is perfect: for all his ways are judgement: Deuteronomy 32:3,4.

Then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed THE ROCK of his salvation. Deuteronomy 32:15, 1.

And he said: THE LORD IS MY ROCK, and my fortress, and my deliverer II Samuel 22:2.

some of the pieces of this Scriptural puzzle have been assembled and placed before you for your consideration. What is your decision? Will you take God at His Word and give honor to the only true Rock and Head of Christ's Church, The Lord Jesus Christ Himself? Or will you take man`s word for it that Peter is that rock?

If you choose the latter, I think that you Ought to be convinced in your own mind that you have made the correct choice. The best recommendation which I can offer; would be for you to gather a convincing number of Scriptures from throughout the Bible which definitely state and confirm the fact that Peter is the rock in question.


Even before Constantine came into the picture, the orthodox bishops are all Catholics.Â* Please read the 'real' history, and not those given to you by some pastors who should have known better.what's your source of real history dacs?Â* Â*read the BibleÂ* again.


- Paul Juris

[dacs]

@dacs: There's no need to insult me dacs. If I planned to be funny I could have just cracked a good joke in the humor section, but i hardly even go there. I suggest you watch your words or you might regret it. I think it's unexusably rude for somebody to say you're funny when you were pretty serious in the discussion.

Pardon me if what I had said is offensive to you. There are more pretty offensive stuff posted in here compared to what I have posted. What you have written is pretty offensive to me. How about the feelings of all other serious Catholics here? Did you consider us?

What's with the threat? You offended us and I took it as a joke. Now, my answer offended you and I am being threatened?

Okay, let's get serious. Could you please give some proofs of all your assertions regarding the Catholic Church?

[shoeless_rebel]

OMG!!!! the catholic fanatics are here!!!!!!!

there goes the supposedly open-minded and fun discussion about the GOSPEL OF JUDAS (incase na limot mo unsa ato topic!)

*runs away

[Gwynhuever]

@shoeless....di jud ta kalingkawas ani nila bro....naguol man gud kaayo ni sila nga nahisala-ag ang atong dalan unya di ta maluwas.....nahan pa ta ko mo tuki sa discovery of the gospel and the gnostics kay interested ko...nasimang man.....

[shoeless_rebel]

@shoeless....di jud ta kalingkawas ani nila bro....naguol man gud kaayo ni sila nga nahisala-ag ang atong dalan unya di ta maluwas.....nahan pa ta ko mo tuki sa discovery of the gospel and the gnostics kay interested ko...nasimang man.....

sakto... na touch ko sa ilang attempt to save our doomed souls. hahay. thanks hap! hehehehehhe... sila ang dalan sa atong salvation gwyn

bitaw istorya ta mga gnostic sects oi!

[Gwynhuever]

@shoeles...open new thread about gnostics bro....nahan ko explore ani....di man ko suweto ani....gamay lang kaayo akong ideas...so ganahan ko ma expand...basin pa diay naa uban istoryans naa sad interest ani diba....so mag alegre ta didto sa imong thread he he he

[shoeless_rebel]

preha2x ra ta cguro ug level sa ato na hibal-ana bout gnosticism. mas maayo kung kato kabalo gyud ang mag open huwatan nato gamay ate gwyn

[Gwynhuever]

@shoeless...yeah i agree...mas nindot bitaw ang mag start sa thread kanang medyo lig-on aron sayon ra ipadayon...but on second thoughts.....i realized this can be the appropriate thread.....kay the Gospel of Judas is one of the Gnostic Gospels man....no need to start another one...if only we can stay on the topic unta....

[dacs]

dacs:

Read Romans 14:1-3. Are you saying that the papal authority does not come from God? If not, then you are being biblical. If it does, then what it the problem?

papal authority? asa dapita sa verses

My mistake. It should have been Romans 13:1-3.

Please read the start of the dialogue. n'gel asserted that Peter regarded himself as a servant, not a leader. From that, I pointed to 13:1-3 (mistakenly 14:1-3). My question then is that : is Peter not part of these 'leaders'?

Dacs, who wrote the book of Romans?

and your point is ..?

How would you then interpret Hebrews 13:17? The letter to the Hebrews is addressed to the Hebrews who are now Christians. Who are the leaders referred to here? Is not St. Peter part of these 'leaders'?
Leaders are ordained by God. Even the Apostle John acknowledged the function of leadership in 1 John 4:6.

yes, the book of Hebrews is addressed to the Hebrews who are Christians. taking in to consideration about Christians who are gentiles, are gentiles who are Christians not incuded as well? of course they are included! (i'm not trying to be funny by answering my own question. just in case you'd ask me these dreaded words for the serious ( Are you kidding me?)

and ... what is your point exactly?

Heb 13:17
17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

When considering any passage in the Bible, it always needs to be compared with similar teachings and with any possible examples shown. This verse is often misused. Clearly, the passage was talking about submitting to leadership. this doesn't mean nga si Peter ra ang ginapasabot ani nga leader. as what you said, Leaders are ordained by God.

Never made the proposition that 'si Peter ra ang gipasabot ani nga leader'. I asked : is not St. Peter part of these 'leaders'? Please refrain from attributing to me what I have never posted.

( say for example-- was King Saul (the first king of Israel before David) ordained by God? NO! he was chosen by the people. we don't have to dig much of the history of King Saul, since i was just citing an example about God's ordinance and about leadership--God chose David though to become one of the greatest leader of Israel.)

So, what's your point here? Are you saying that King Saul has no authority because he is not 'ordained' (I am not quite sure if I understood your usage of this word)? All authority comes from God. From whence did the authority of King Saul com or did he have no authority?

and Peter, yes he's one of Christ's apostles and a leader. but i don't take any account of what you just said that

You have just contradicted the assertion of n'gel.

Tertullian once wrote of Peter in this manner :

"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called, 'the rock on which the church should be built,' who also obtained 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' with the power of 'loosing and binding in heaven and on earth'?"(On Prescription against Heretics, A.D. 200)

And I say to thee. thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:1

The purpose of this study is to determine from Scriptural evidence, who Christ really established His church upon. When we arrive at a definite conclusion from Scripture, as to who the "Rock" Christ is speaking of in Matthew 16:18 is, we will then have our answer.

...

some of the pieces of this Scriptural puzzle have been assembled and placed before you for your consideration. What is your decision? Will you take God at His Word and give honor to the only true Rock and Head of Christ's Church, The Lord Jesus Christ Himself? Or will you take man`s word for it that Peter is that rock?

If you choose the latter, I think that you Ought to be convinced in your own mind that you have made the correct choice. The best recommendation which I can offer; would be for you to gather a convincing number of Scriptures from throughout the Bible which definitely state and confirm the fact that Peter is the rock in question.

The following text is taken from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm.

MATTHEW 16:17-19

In Matthew 16:17-19, the office is solemnly promised to the Apostle. In response to his profession of faith in the Divine Nature of his Master, Christ thus addresses him:

Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven." The prerogatives here promised are manifestly personal to Peter. His profession of faith was not made as has been sometimes asserted, in the name of the other Apostles. This is evident from the words of Christ. He pronounces on the Apostle, distinguishing him by his name Simon son of John, a peculiar and personal blessing, declaring that his knowledge regarding the Divine Sonship sprang from a special revelation granted to him by the Father (cf. Matthew 11:27).

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter. . ." He further proceeds to recompense this confession of His Divinity by bestowing upon him a reward proper to himself:

Thou art Peter [Cepha, transliterated also Kipha] and upon this rock [Cepha] I will build my Church.

The word for Peter and for rock in the original Aramaic is one and the same; this renders it evident that the various attempts to explain the term "rock" as having reference not to Peter himself but to something else are misinterpretations. It is Peter who is the rock of the Church. The term ecclesia (ekklesia) here employed is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew qahal, the name which denoted the Hebrew nation viewed as God's Church (see THE CHURCH, I).

"And upon this rock I will build my Church. . ." Here then Christ teaches plainly that in the future the Church will be the society of those who acknowledge Him, and that this Church will be built on Peter.

The expression presents no difficulty. In both the Old and New Testaments the Church is often spoken of under the metaphor of God's house (Numbers 12:7; Jeremiah 12:7; Hosea 8:1; 9:15; 1 Corinthians 3:9-17, Ephesians 2:20-2; 1 Timothy 3:5; Hebrews 3:5; 1 Peter 2:5). Peter is to be to the Church what the foundation is in regard to a house.

He is to be the principle of unity, of stability, and of increase. He is the principle of unity, since what is not joined to that foundation is no part of the Church; of stability, since it is the firmness of this foundation in virtue of which the Church remains unshaken by the storms which buffet her; of increase, since, if she grows, it is because new stones are laid on this foundation.

"And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." It is through her union with Peter, Christ continues, that the Church will prove the victor in her long contest with the Evil One:

[color=purple] The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.[/b]

There can be but one explanation of this striking metaphor. The only manner in which a man can stand in such a relation to any corporate body is by possessing authority over it. The supreme head of a body, in dependence on whom all subordinate authorities hold their power, and he alone, can be said to be the principle of stability, unity, and increase. The promise acquires additional solemnity when we remember that both Old Testament prophecy (Isaiah 28:16) and Christ's own words (Matthew 7:24) had attributed this office of foundation of the Church to Himself. He is therefore assigning to Peter, of course in a secondary degree, a prerogative which is His own, and thereby associating the Apostle with Himself in an altogether singular manner.

"And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." In the following verse (Matthew 16:19) He promises to bestow on Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

The words refer evidently to Isaiah 22:22, where God declares that Eliacim, the son of Helcias, shall be invested with office in place of the worthless Sobna:

And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut and none shall open.

In all countries the key is the symbol of authority. Thus, Christ's words are a promise that He will confer on Peter supreme power to govern the Church. Peter is to be His vicegerent, to rule in His place.

"And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." Further the character and extent of the power thus bestowed are indicated. It is a power to "bind" and to "loose" -- words which, as is shown below, denote the grant of legislative and judicial authority. And this power is granted in its fullest measure. Whatever Peter binds or looses on earth, his act will receive the Divine ratification.

Objections. The meaning of this passage does not seem to have been challenged by any writer until the rise of the sixteenth-century heresies. Since then a great variety of interpretations have been put forward by Protestant controversialists. These agree in little save in the rejection of the plain sense of Christ's words. Some Anglican controversy tends to the view that the reward promised to St. Peter consisted in the prominent part taken by him in the initial activities of the Church, but that he was never more than primus inter pares among the Apostles. It is manifest that this is quite insufficient as an explanation of the terms of Christ's promise.

JOHN 21:15-17

The promise made by Christ in Matthew 16:16-19, received its fulfilment after the Resurrection in the scene described in John 21. Here the Lord, when about to leave the earth, places the whole flock -- the sheep and the lambs alike -- in the charge of the Apostle. The term employed in 21:16, "Be the shepherd [poimaine] of my sheep" indicates that his task is not merely to feed but to rule. It is the same word as is used in Psalm 2:9 (Septuagint): "Thou shalt rule [poimaneis] them with a rod of iron".

The scene stands in striking parallelism with that of Matthew 16. As there the reward was given to Peter after a profession of faith which singled him out from the other eleven, so here Christ demands a similar protestation, but this time of a yet higher virtue: "Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these"? Here, too, as there, He bestows on the Apostle an office which in its highest sense is proper to Himself alone. There Christ had promised to make Peter the foundation-stone of the house of God: here He makes him the shepherd of God's flock to take the place of Himself, the Good Shepherd.

The passage receives an admirable comment from St. Chrysostom:

He saith to him, "Feed my sheep". Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say "Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?", I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world.
["Hom. 88 (87) in Joan.", 1. Cf. Origen, "In Ep. ad Rom.", 5:10; Ephraem Syrus "Hymn. in B. Petr." in "Bibl. Orient. Assemani", 1:95; Leo I, "Serm. iv de natal.", 2].

Even certain Protestant commentators frankly own that Christ undoubtedly intended here to confer the supreme pastorate on Peter. But other scholars, relying on a passage of St. Cyril of Alexandria ("In Joan." 12:1), maintain that the purpose of the threefold charge was simply to reinstate St. Peter in the Apostolic commission which his threefold denial might be supposed to have lost to him. This interpretation is devoid of all probability. There is not a word in Scripture or in patristic tradition to suggest that St. Peter had forfeited his Apostolic commission; and the supposition is absolutely excluded by the fact that on the evening of the Resurrection he received the same Apostolic powers as the others of the eleven. The solitary phrase of St. Cyril is of no weight against the overwhelming patristic authority for the other view. That such an interpretation should be seriously advocated proves how great is the difficulty experienced by Protestants regarding this text.

CONCLUSION

The position of St. Peter after the Ascension, as shown in the Acts of the Apostles, realizes to the full the great commission bestowed upon him. He is from the first the chief of the Apostolic band -- not primus inter pares, but the undisputed head of the Church (see THE CHURCH, III).

If then Christ, as we have seen, established His Church as a society subordinated to a single supreme head, it follows from the very nature of the case that this office is perpetual, and cannot have been a mere transitory feature of ecclesiastical life. For the Church must endure to the end the very same organization which Christ established. But in an organized society it is precisely the constitution which is the essential feature. A change in constitution transforms it into a society of a different kind. If then the Church should adopt a constitution other than Christ gave it, it would no longer be His handiwork. It would no longer be the Divine kingdom established by Him. As a society it would have passed through essential modifications, and thereby would have become a human, not a Divine institution. None who believe that Christ came on earth to found a Church, an organized society destined to endure for ever, can admit the possibility of a change in the organization given to it by its Founder.

The same conclusion also follows from a consideration of the end which, by Christ's declaration, the supremacy of Peter was intended to effect. He was to give the Church strength to resist her foes, so that the gates of hell should not prevail against her. The contest with the powers of evil does not belong to the Apostolic age alone. It is a permanent feature of the Church's life. Hence, throughout the centuries the office of Peter must be realized in the Church, in order that she may prevail in her age-long struggle.

Thus an analysis of Christ's words shows us that the perpetuity of the office of supreme head is to be reckoned among the truths revealed in Scripture. His promise to Peter conveyed not merely a personal prerogative, but established a permanent office in the Church. And in this sense, as will appear in the next section, His words were understood by Latin and Greek Fathers alike.

In addition to the above, let me point you to former Protestant pastors and laymen who converted to Catholicism. They used your arguments before. They should, at least, have a good idea on your kind of reasoning.

Scott Hahn, The Pope, the Holy Father;
David Palm, Papal Infallibility
Dave Armstrong, The Witness of the Church Fathers With Regard to Catholic Distinctives

and one from Art Kelly, Was Peter the First Pope? (I have not check if this guy is a convert or not)

Even before Constantine came into the picture, the orthodox bishops are all Catholics. Please read the 'real' history, and not those given to you by some pastors who should have known better.

what's your source of real history dacs? read the Bible again.

- Paul Juris

I am confused here. The only council recorded in the Bible is the Council of Jerusalem wherein only the words of Sts. Peter and James are recorded. How could you refer to the Bible for the history of the councils? Do you refer to the Bible for the history of the councils?

My source of 'real' church history are three : Catholic, Protestant and secular. I found an overwhelming support of my claims from reputable historians who are recognized by their own peers. I wondered why you have never commented on the first half of my post. It contained a lot of references to the writings of the early Christians.

[dacs]

@shoeless...yeah i agree...mas nindot bitaw ang mag start sa thread kanang medyo lig-on aron sayon ra ipadayon...but on second thoughts.....i realized this can be the appropriate thread.....kay the Gospel of Judas is one of the Gnostic Gospels man....no need to start another one...if only we can stay on the topic unta....

Sorry. I got carried away.

Gnosticism was supposed to have started way before the incarnation of Christ and took on a lot of forms (including rituals and other distinctives). Manichaens are said to be gnostics but others will argue that they are not. Zoroasters are purportedly gnostics but I personally have not read a counter-proposal.

So, what's your take?