Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Apostle Cephas ( St. Peter ) and Cephas of Antioch same person ?

Expand Messages
  • Paul Reji
    Dear Issac I agree to Isaac. What I and you are saying same things. Sorry, I was not clear in my writing before. Issac says Lord gave special powers to St.
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 6, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Issac

      I agree to Isaac. What I and you are saying same things. Sorry, I was not clear in my writing before.

      Issac says Lord gave special powers to St. Peter. I am saying , True. But IO (and some eastern orthodox )churches is using Gal( 2:7-14 to show that Apostle Paul and Apostle Peter are like brothers and there is no special powers given to Apostle Peter. That is they ( IO & EO) conetend that there is no primacy for St.Peter.

      According` to them "If St.Peter had any primacy, St.Paul would NOT have admonised St.Peter."

      And using this verse they ( IOC etc ) make trivial of what Lord said in Mat 16:18 which Issac has quoted. What I am saying it is hard for me believe that some one like ( IOC) can make trivial or what LORD said in Mat 16:18, and John 20:21-22. using Gal 2:7

      But the argument was did St.Paul admonish Apostle Peter?

      My argument was no. ( so i am countering what IO, EO churches teach )

      Because St.Paul admonished "Cephas " which some mistakenly taken as St.Peter. Actualy this Cephas who St.Paul admonisehd was a Jewish leader, NOT apostle Peter.

      Thefore for IOC's argument quoting gal 2:7 is not valid or true. On the top of that what they preach is against what Lord said.

      Hope I am clear.
      Regards
      Paul Philipose
      St. Ignatous Syrian Orthodox Church
      Dallas
      Member ID # 0901

      NB:
      If you look at orthodox literature, we can see that they abuse our fathers of the church ( who are revered all over the world ).I am surprised by this. Because their argument is St. Thomas establshed his church in India just like St.Peter establihsed one in Antioch. So they agree St.Peter established one in Antioch. And we are a part of it.

      All they are saying is they are not a PART of the church St.Peter established. But we are saying St. Thomas has established a church as a part of church St.Peter establihsed in Antioch. Not independant one like they claim. So I am surprised how they could keep disparaging the Holy fathers. I am more surprised how people can follow IO church.

      Finaly, will they have to say "IO" to Lord? Because finaly the only reason is for this split is some one wanted to become a "head" of the church?. Because it is hard to tell people like this they keep inventing reasons.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.