Thank you Dr . Gray .You are so wonderfully faith - filled. I am taking your 14 week Bible Study about Mark 's Gospel- (Forned). You are a Prophet , and I am so blessed to hear and listen to your teaching .
Because St. Paul knew a “Puten” (2nd Timothy 4:21), two things need to be noted. This may or may not be the same “Puten” that St. Paul knew and whose name is found on a brick 2 thousand years later. Obviously, there were many “putens” in the Roman Empire. There is no way to know for sure. Secondly, to apply this to St. Peter is without historical or scriptural foundations. Thus, there is no SCRIPTURAL foundation for Peter to be the head of the Roman Church. Note, carefully that St. Peter’s name is not even mentioned among the faithful of the Church of Rome whom St. Paul identifies in Chapter 16 of his famous letter to the Church of Rome. To say that St. Paul purposely overlooked St. Peter in Romans Chapter 16 is beyond credibility. The talk seems like a soft sell on the idea that Peter was the OFFICIAL head of the early church. Dr. Gray’s use of 1 Corinthians is somewhat typical of Catholic theologians who strain out the gnat (that this passage in 1st Corinthians 3 proves that Peter was in Rome via Aquila and Pricilla), and yet swallow the camel (the whole jest of St. Paul’s argument is that Peter was not any better than any of the other Apostles). Why was the context and emphasis of 1 Corinthians, chapter 3, completely ignored? Seems to me that the FOCUS of St. Paul was overlooked because it would have put St. Peter in His rightful place. And what is St. Peter’s OFFICIAL position in the 1st century Church. All we need to do is listen to St. Peter himself , who declared and confirmed his OFFICIAL position within the Church as being that of “an Apostle,” (1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1). Remember that St. Peter wrote these words under the inspiration and direction of the Holy Spirit, who promises to guide the Apostles into all Truth (John 16:13). None of the other Apostles ever addressed St. Peter as the Rock of the Church. In fact, every time that St. Peter uses the Greek words for rock (whether Petra or lithos), he uses it in reference to Christ Jesus (cf. Acts 4:11, 12; 1 Peter 2:6-8), and not in reference to himself. “SO LET NO ONE BOAST IN MEN. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas…” (1 Corinthians 3:21). Note that Peter is listed last in this passage, and the focus of the argument here is that the Apostles are to be viewed as equals. Likewise this is confirmed by Matthew 23:8-11.
Thank you Dr. Tim for God be the glory. This is the first time I heard this revelation. Thank God. Ed Calma from the Philippines.
Thank you Dr Gray, your teachings are always mind opening
EXTREMELY INTERESTING! 📖 Sharing.
Thank you Dr . Gray .You are so wonderfully faith - filled. I am taking your 14 week Bible Study about Mark 's Gospel- (Forned). You are a Prophet , and I am so blessed to hear and listen to your teaching .
Thank you very much Dr Gray!
Spelling binding talk...enjoyed it immensely! There is so much here I have to listen to it many times!
senator putin? santa puntinciana? I can't find these names on google, help?
Santa Pudenziana is the name of the church in Rome
Thank you! I couldn't understand and I kept hearing the name Putin, lol!
Thank you sooooo much!
Roman sanator pruten
hahahaha senator putin is like a sitcom when putin is excommunicated from Russia and operates as an undercover american senator
Because St. Paul knew a “Puten” (2nd Timothy 4:21), two things need to be noted. This may or may not be the same “Puten” that St. Paul knew and whose name is found on a brick 2 thousand years later. Obviously, there were many “putens” in the Roman Empire. There is no way to know for sure. Secondly, to apply this to St. Peter is without historical or scriptural foundations. Thus, there is no SCRIPTURAL foundation for Peter to be the head of the Roman Church. Note, carefully that St. Peter’s name is not even mentioned among the faithful of the Church of Rome whom St. Paul identifies in Chapter 16 of his famous letter to the Church of Rome. To say that St. Paul purposely overlooked St. Peter in Romans Chapter 16 is beyond credibility.
The talk seems like a soft sell on the idea that Peter was the OFFICIAL head of the early church. Dr. Gray’s use of 1 Corinthians is somewhat typical of Catholic theologians who strain out the gnat (that this passage in 1st Corinthians 3 proves that Peter was in Rome via Aquila and Pricilla), and yet swallow the camel (the whole jest of St. Paul’s argument is that Peter was not any better than any of the other Apostles). Why was the context and emphasis of 1 Corinthians, chapter 3, completely ignored? Seems to me that the FOCUS of St. Paul was overlooked because it would have put St. Peter in His rightful place. And what is St. Peter’s OFFICIAL position in the 1st century Church. All we need to do is listen to St. Peter himself , who declared and confirmed his OFFICIAL position within the Church as being that of “an Apostle,” (1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1). Remember that St. Peter wrote these words under the inspiration and direction of the Holy Spirit, who promises to guide the Apostles into all Truth (John 16:13). None of the other Apostles ever addressed St. Peter as the Rock of the Church. In fact, every time that St. Peter uses the Greek words for rock (whether Petra or lithos), he uses it in reference to Christ Jesus (cf. Acts 4:11, 12; 1 Peter 2:6-8), and not in reference to himself.
“SO LET NO ONE BOAST IN MEN. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas…” (1 Corinthians 3:21).
Note that Peter is listed last in this passage, and the focus of the argument here is that the Apostles are to be viewed as equals. Likewise this is confirmed by Matthew 23:8-11.