Catholics seem to follow Matthew, James, and Peter but Protestants follow Paul, Luke, and John. Who's right? I don't get it.
Catholics seem to follow Matthew, James, and Peter but Protestants follow Paul, Luke, and John. Who's right...
Thomas Price
Leo Williams
Following Mark.
Adrian Sanchez
Everyone "follow" every one of these. The issue is with understanding the implications of what they wrote, both concerning the texts themselves, the experience of God in tradition (I do not mean only Apostolic Tradition - even Evangelical churches have their "tradition"), and the experience of God here and now.
It's also not right to say that Catholics follow Matthew, James, and Peter, or that Protestants follow Paul, Luke, and John, because they remain stuck on a particular passage of each and develop it into a ridiculous exegesis. Matthew wrote on more subjects than the keys of heaven and divorce. Paul wrote on more subjects than justification and spiritual gifts.
We are not to be of Apollos, or of Paul, or of Cephas, but of Christ. If anything, in my opinions, Catholics are too far in the direction of being "of Cephas" and Protestants are too far in the direction of being "of Paul", and they therefore turn them into something that neither scripture nor tradition shows them to actually be.
With that said, if we accuse Catholics and Protestants of focusing too much on certain Biblical authors, I wonder what it is for the Orthodox. Maybe John (because of his gospel) and Paul (because of Hebrews).
John Parker
Until you get your sword and run it through bankers, you will never be "as Christ".
Lucas Walker
See icon. Peter and Paul both.
And while Orthodox may downplay Peter's primacy (in papal terms), it isn't downplayed as Protestants might do it. Personally, I'd say even that moment when Paul rebuked Peter for being afraid of James and his Jerusalem cohort was Paul actually acknowledging how important Peter was. It's like that moment in Braveheart, if you will.. when William Wallace took Robert the Bruce to the side and said he was willing to follow him, if he just didn't screw up. Like Wallace, Paul knew that Peter had a God given importance. Not necessarily in the modern papal sense, but to deny the reality of it is to deny scripture.. Peter is front and center.
And Luke btw wouldn't be in the Paulist category. He's exactly in this category. He writes about both extensively. They're his two main focal points. Not one or the other.
Joseph Smith
Peter is the bishop of Antioch.
I don't see you mofos saying come back to Antioch.
Michael James
Who do you think I am, and what do you mean by mofos?
In any case, indeed, Antioch is important because of Peter's presence there. But so is Rome. That's the case for both Peter and Paul.. both churches were blessed by the presence of two apostles.
Logan Gomez
Motherwinnie the pooher.
I remember Jesus giving the keys to Peter, who is the bishop of Antioch, not Rome.
Rome has jackshit to do with anything but Caesar.
John Baker
Seeing as there were twelve Apostles, and today there are hundreds of bishops, we can rightly conclude that there can be multiple bishops who can claim Apostolic succession from the same Apostles. Seeing as Antioch fell to Nestorianism, it's probably safe to assume that the Roman line of Petrine Apostolic succession is more legitimate today than the Antiochan one.
Jose Sullivan
Yeah, I still don't know what you mean. Maybe it's the weird censorship. You probably shouldn't cuss anyways and just speak plainly so the filters don't mess it up.
You're a strange one. So you acknowledge he was given the keys, but deny that Rome has anything to do with Peter and Paul? Are you Sola Scriptura and ignore any extraneous Christian history?
In any case, Antioch was built in the earliest years of the church. But Apostles don't stay at particular churches permanently. That's not their job. That might be the biggest root of the problem right there… when people mistake them like any other bishop. No, they PLANT bishops. They're the bishops over bishops. Apostle means "one who is sent".. It's a mobile office/specifically a missionary but with the highest amount of authority and grace. Not a mere bishop who has a home church. So Antioch is important because he established it, but Rome is also important because he planted that too and was martyred there. And if you don't understand the importance of the blood of martyrs, you have no business talking at all.