Posted on 07/10/2005 5:27:58 AM PDT by NYer
Among Catholic doctrines, those pertaining to the papacy tend to be the most misunderstood and contested by non-catholics. The following verses show the biblical basis for Catholic teaching on the primacy of Peter, the office of the papacy being established by Christ and allusions to the doctrine of infallibility. These doctrines reached their full development in the life of the Church only after centuries of contemplation and study, in councils and through the actions of the popes. And we should never forget that since the Church is likened by Christ to a “mustart seed” that grows and develops organically from a speck into a large treelike plant, therefore we should not expect to see the Church’s doctrines fully developed and visible in its present form in the pages of the New Testament. What we do find in the New Testament though, is the scriptural record of Peter’s primacy among the Apostles and the seminal outlines of the doctrines pertaining to the papacy.
The Primacy of Peter
One compelling biblical fact that points clearly to Simon Peter’s primacy among the 12 Apostles and his importance and centrality to the drama of Christ’s earthly ministry, is that he is mentioned by name (e.g. Simon, Peter, Cephas, Kephas, etc.) 195 times in the course of the New Testament. The next most often-mentioned Apostle is St. John, who is mentioned a mere 29 times. After John, in descending order, the frequency of the other Apostles being mentioned by name trails off rapidly.
When the names of all the Apostles are listed, Peter is always first. Judas Iscariot, the Lord’s traitor, is always listed last (cf. Matt. 10:2-5; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-17; and Acts 1:13). Sometimes Scripture speaks simply of “Simon Peter and the rest of the Apostles” or “Peter and his companions” (cf. Luke 9:32; Mark 16:7; Acts 2:37), showing that he had a special role that represented the entire apostolic college. Often, Scripture shows Simon Peter as spokesman for the entire apostolic college, as if he were the voice of the Church (cf. Mat. 18:21; Mark 8:29; Luke 8:45; Luke 12:41; John 6:68-69).
Other Citations
It is from Simon Peter’s fishing boat (cf. Luke 5:3) that Christ preaches to the crowds (this is significant in light of the fact that, since very early times, the Catholic Church has been widely referred to in patristic writings and religious art as the “barque” [archaic English for “boat”] of Peter. In these episodes, Peter plays a central role in the drama as usual).
In Mark 16:7 we see that the angels single Peter out among the Apostles when they tell the Holy Women to “go, tell his disciples and Peter” about the Lord’s Resurrection.
In Luke 24:33-35 we see that the risen Christ appears to Simon Peter first, before appearing to the other Apostles.
In Acts 1:15-26 it is Peter who leads the Apostles in selecting a replacement for Judas.
In Acts 3:1-9, we see St. Peter leading the infant Christian Church forward through difficult moments after the Resurrection. He is clearly the chief of the Apostles as he preaches in Acts 2 the first post-Pentecost sermon to the crowds, performs in Acts 3 the first post-Pentecost miracle and in Acts 4, with John,m turns the tables on the Jewish Sanhedrin by putting them on trial in the very setting where they intended to intimidate the Apostles.
In Acts 10, Simon Peter receives a special revelation from God that Gentiles are to be welcomed into the Church without having to follow Jewish Kosher food restrictiions or undergo circumcision. In Acts 11, he acts in the name of the Church in welcoming the first Gentile converts to be received according to this new revelation.
In Acts 15, at the Council of Jerusalem, Peter delivers the revelation pertaining to Gentile believers that causes the disputes to cease and the room to fall silent (cf. Acts 6-12). St. James, the bishop of Jerusalem, appears in a position of leadership alongside Peter. While James delivers the pastoral, disciplinary teaching (cf. Acts 13-21), it was Peter who delivered the binding doctrinal teaching. His primacy was recognized by St. Paul (who in Antioch “withstood Peter to his face” over the vexing issue of his refraining to eat with Gentiles) when he describes in Galatians 1:18 how he went to see Peter to make sure his teaching was in line with Peter’s.
Jesus, Peter & the keys A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy
It is 431 pages long. There are no doubts after reading this and the bible together.
Of course you have,this was just frosting on the cake. The ingredients,directly from scripture,that comprise the cake are:
Mt.16:15-19; 1Cor.15:3-5; Gal.1:18; Is.61:1-2; Is.22:15-25;Rev.3:7;Acts 2:14-36; Lk.22:31-32;Acts 15; Mt.10:2-4;Acts 12:5; Jn. 21:15-17; Mt.17:24-27; Mt.14:28-31; Mk.16:7; Acts 4:8-12; Acts 5:3-11; Acts5:15; Acts8:9-25; Acts 9:32-35.
I hope after reading these passages you will understand how inconceivable it is for an informed Roman Catholic to understand how any non-Roman Catholic can argue Christ's intention to establish a visible Church with a visible leader.
Here is a copy and paste on Peter that explains how just a reading of the Bible explains that, it is from a post of mine a while back and I decided to save it because it saves me typing time each time this subject comes up :)
What is important to remember in what follows, is the question: Do you read the Bible in the light of the doctrine you were taught; or; do you read the Bible and THEN decide on what your doctrine is? Too many people hear something about the Bible, ABOUT what it says, ABOUT what it means, and they never, ever critically ever read what some passage was supposed to be teaching in the first place.
Here is my copy and paste:
Each time the word ROCK is used in the Bible in reference to any providing of the people, it is used as God being the one provided. Here is the first verse in the Bible in the KJV showing just that.
(Exo 17:6 KJV) Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.
Who pointed out where the ROCK was? God did. What came out of the ROCK? Water, water to drink. Who is referred to as LIVING WATER, water that must be drunk to live eternally? Jesus.
(John 7:38 KJV) He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Each time the word ROCK is used, where God provides the ROCK, it is either a literal ROCK, like just above, where WATER came out of, water to allow the Isralites to live, it came from GOD, not a man.
When it refers to a spiritual meaning, the word ROCK is used to describe God as creator or Saviour! IT IS NEVER USED TO DESCRIBE A MAN!
(Deu 32:1 KJV) Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth.
(Deu 32:2 KJV) My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass:
(Deu 32:3 KJV) Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.
(Deu 32:4 KJV) He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
Who is the ROCK? God is, He is our support, our Saviour, our Creator.NOT A MAN.
(Deu 32:18 KJV) Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.
GOD is the ROCK, the Creator, not a man.
(Deu 32:30 KJV) How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the LORD had shut them up?
(Deu 32:31 KJV) For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.
Who is the ROCK? It is GOD, not a man!
(1 Sam 2:2 KJV) There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.
Who is the ROCK? It is not a man, it is GOD!
(2 Sam 22:2 KJV) And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer;
(2 Sam 22:3 KJV) The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.
Who is the ROCK? It is GOD. NOT a sinful man who denied his God, but GOD Himself.
Peter is NO ONE'S shield.
Peter is NO ONE'S high tower.
Peter is NO ONE'S refuge.
and Peter is NO ONE'S Saviour! To say anything like those statements are true of a sinful man is blasphemy.
Most Catholics never read the section before or after this part:
(Mat 16:18 KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
That is one reason some people do not find it obvious.
Here is what it says::
(Mat 16:13 KJV) When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
(Mat 16:14 KJV) And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
(Mat 16:15 KJV) He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
(Mat 16:16 KJV) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
(Mat 16:17 KJV) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
What was the original topic of discussion?
(Mat 16:13 KJV) When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
Jesus asked,
That was the topic of discussion.
What was the response?
(Mat 16:14 KJV) And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
They were all over the place, it seems that there was not many who were catching on to exactly who Jesus was.
So, what was the next sentence?
(Mat 16:15 KJV) He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
(Mat 16:16 KJV) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Jesus asked the disciples themselves what THEY thought, not just one disciple, but ALL of them.
Peter gave the best answer, that Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Right from there, many people ignore what was just said, and only concentrate on what comes next.
However, that is where the error lies, in ignoring what was just said.
It is like explaining to someone that people put sodas in the soda machine first, then act surprised when soda comes out of the machine when you put money into it. People forget what happened first: someone loaded the machine.
In the same respect, Jesus set the tone for the conversation: WHO IS HE?
Peter had it right: Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
That was the point of what Jesus was saying. That He was the Christ.
That was what He just said!
We all know what comes next, and it is because people ignore what was just said, that they get this part wrong:The Context of the ongoing conversation is important:
(Mat 16:17 KJV) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
(Mat 16:18 KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Jesus explains that Peter's revelation did not come from His logic, it came from God the Father Himself. This type of instruction was done on a spiritual level, not fleshly, it was something that Peter would have never figured out for himself.
What did Jesus say next? Peter is blessed because he was BLESSED with this information.
What information?
That Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
That is the point.
What Jesus said next is the most misused verse in the entire New Testament.
(Mat 16:18 KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Peter and Rock. Is Peter the rock spoken of here, or is the IMPORTANT POINT THAT GOD REVEALED TO PETER the rock?
17 And [ 2532] Jesus [2424] answered [ 611] (5679) and said [ 2036] (5627) unto him [846], Blessed [ 3107] art thou [ 1488] (5748), Simon [ 4613] Barjona [ 920]: for [ 3754] flesh [ 4561] and [ 2532] blood [ 129] hath [ 601] [0] not [3756] revealed [601] (5656) it unto thee [4671], but [ 235] my [ 3450] Father [ 3962] which [ 3588] is in [ 1722] heaven [ 3772].
18 And [ 1161] I say [ 3004] (5719) also [ 2504] unto thee [ 4671], That [ 3754] thou [ 4771] art [ 1488] (5748) Peter [ 4074], and [ 2532] upon [ 1909] this [ 5026] rock [ 4073] I will build [ 3618] (5692) my [ 3450] church [ 1577]; and [ 2532] the gates [ 4439] of hell [ 86] shall [ 2729] [0] not [ 3756] prevail against [ 2729] (5692) it [ 846].
18 kagw [ 2504] de [ 1161] soi [ 4671] legw [ 3004] (5719) oti [ 3754] su [ 4771] ei [ 1488] (5748) petroj [ 4074] kai [ 2532] epi [ 1909] tauth [ 3778] th [ 3588] petra [ 4073] oikodomhsw [ 3618] (5692) mou [ 3450] thn [ 3588] ekklhsian [ 1577] kai [ 2532] pulai [ 4439] adou [ 86] ou [ 3756] katiscusousin [ 2729] (5692) authj [ 846]
Peter =
4074 petroj Petros pet'-ros
apparently a primary word; TDNT - 6:100,835; n pr m
AV - Peter 161, stone 1; 162
Peter = "a rock or a stone"
1) one of the twelve disciples of Jesus
rock =
4073 petra petra pet'-ra
from the same as 4074; TDNT - 6:95,834; n f
AV - rock 16; 16
1) a rock, cliff or ledge
1a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground
1b) a rock, a large stone
1c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul
Due to what Jesus was talking about, the ROCK had to be the truth Peter had revealed to him from God the Father, that JESUS IS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.
There is no other sensible explanation of the verse unless it is twisted to make someone believe what is not there in the text.
Because of all the previous uses of the word ROCK to describe the attributes of God as Creator, Deliverer, Saviour, to ascribe those attributes to a man, that is a total misunderstanding of Scripture.
Too many people form what they believe around their doctrine, and then interpret the Bible in the light of that doctrine.
That is wrong. Doctrine should come from what the Bible clearly says, and then base their doctrine on what it clearly says!
The Bible nowhere grants Peter any authority that is not also given to the other disciples.
Jesus is also called the ROCK or CORNER STONE in many other verses, but PETER IS NOT!
Notice what is said in this passage::
(Mat 7:24 KJV) Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
(Mat 7:25 KJV) And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
(Mat 7:26 KJV) And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
(Mat 7:27 KJV) And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
What is it that a person built their house upon and survived? A ROCK.
If a person is foolish, what does a person build their house upon? SAND. What did Jesus say that those who rejected his words built upon? SAND.
If the foolish reject Jesus and build upon SAND, then those who BELIEVE and RECEIVE what Jesus said, which of the two men is Jesus comparing them to, the SAND builder or the ROCK builder?
It is CLEAR that Jesus is referring to those who BELIEVE on HIM and trust HIM as one who builds their house UPON A ROCK.
That is JESUS own words several chapters before Peter's declaration.
This is repeated in more detail in Luke::
(Luke 6:47 KJV) Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like:
(Luke 6:48 KJV) He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.
(Luke 6:49 KJV) But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.
Note again, the PERSON who believes on the WORD OF GOD, is likened to someone building their house UPON A ROCK.
So, what does the reference to A ROCK in ALL these cases refer to?
Is it a MAN or is it the WORD OF GOD revealed?
This is not difficult to read, but too many people have been taught to interpret the passage in Matthew in such a way to twist what is actually being said, and these alternate passages repeat the same basic message: THAT GOD is what matters, not men or a single man.
Paul wrote in Romans 9::
(Rom 9:33 KJV) As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Who is Paul speaking of when he SAYS A ROCK of offense? A Stumbling stone? It is Jesus, and refers to those who refuse to believe.
(1 Cor 10:4 KJV) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Who is the ROCK?
It plainly says the ROCK WAS JESUS, not Peter.
There is no other place where Peter is praised or given any authority, in fact Peter is rebuked for his actions by other persons.
(Gal 2:11 KJV) But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
(Gal 2:12 KJV) For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
(Gal 2:13 KJV) And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
(Gal 2:14 KJV) But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
If PETER is the ROCK of the Church, then WHO IS PAUL to REBUKE PETER?
Paul clearly rebuked Peter in this passage because PETER was WRONG and at FAULT!
The ROCK of the Church CANNOT HAVE ANY FAULT, or else there is NO FOUNDATION to stand upon but error!!
Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, not Peter, also. While the book of Acts clearly tells Peter to witness to a Gentile first, Peter is NOWHERE granted any position or title that PETER is the Apostle to the Gentiles, but PAUL clearly IS named as SUCH!
(Rom 15:15 KJV) Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God,
(Rom 15:16 KJV) That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
The Book of Galatians is the clearest refutation to many false doctrines concerning this::
(Gal 2:1 KJV) Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
(Gal 2:2 KJV) And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
Now, read the next passage carefully:: WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY??
(Gal 2:7 KJV) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
(Gal 2:8 KJV) (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
THE GOSPEL OF THE UNCIRCUMCISION WAS GIVEN TO PAUL, NOT PETER.
PETER WAS TO BE THE APOSTLE TO THE JEWS.
(Eph 3:1 KJV) For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
WHO WAS? PAUL was, not Peter.
(Eph 3:8 KJV) Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
WHO WAS?? Paul was!!
(1 Tim 2:7 KJV) Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
WHO IS A TEACHER OF THE GENTILES?
Paul is! NOT Peter, every time Peter is mentioned as to WHAT PEOPLE Peter is to be associated with it is the JEWS, WITH ONLY ONE EXCEPTION, and that is Acts chapter 10.
Only ONCE, while PAUL is repeatedly and openly called or referred to as the Apostle of the Gentiles.
In fact, there might even be more references to PAUL witnessing to Jews then there are references to PETER witnessing to Gentiles! And this from the man who is KNOWN as THE APOSTLE OF THE GENTILES!
(Acts 9:19 KJV) And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.
(Acts 9:20 KJV) And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.
(Acts 9:21 KJV) But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests?
(Acts 9:22 KJV) But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.
Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. 3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. 4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. 5 And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister.
Acts 14:1 And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed. 2 But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren.
Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Acts 17:(Acts 17:10 KJV) And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
(Acts 18:4 KJV) And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
(Acts 18:5 KJV) And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.
(Acts 20:21 KJV) Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
(2 Tim 1:11 KJV) Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
(2 Tim 4:17 KJV) Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.
Strengthened who? PETER?? NO!
Paul!
The doctrines of Peter being the ROCK are clearly not supported by Scripture.
That cannot be denied by anyone who knows how to read for themselves.
(Acts 17:10 KJV) And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
(Acts 17:11 KJV) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
(Acts 17:12 KJV) Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
"Jesus spoke Aramaic"
We have absolutely no evidence of what language Jesus spoke, only evidence of what language the Bible was written in, and I have yet to find a definite source declaring that Matthew was written in Aramaic. I don't doubt it, but I have been trying to find an Aramaic/English Interlinear on-line and cant. If you know of one, please ping me.
I personally believe Jesus spoke Hebrew. Hebrew is the language of the Jews, their formal language and also their common language, regardless of how common Aramaic was in that time period.
Neither did Jesus rename Peter, he clearly called Peter a stone. To believe otherwise means you believe Jesus changed the subject of His being the Messiah. Jesus entire passage was n the Church, His founding of it being the Messiah, and the fact that HIS church would have no end.
It had NOTHING to do with a sinful man being any sort of a foundation. The only foundation for the Church was Jesus Christ Himself.
Luke 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like:
48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.
Jesus clearly says HE is the rock that the man built his house upon, not Peter.
What did Paul say about building upon a MAN'S foundational work?
(Rom 15:20 KJV) Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:
Paul said he would NOT go anywhere another man had alreayd preached. Since we KNOW Peter was in Rome after Paul, and they may have met there, Peter surely would have known this verse and this course of action and would NOT have built upon Paul's work in Rome.
(1 Cor 3:10 KJV) According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Paul makes it clear: The FOUNDATION of the Church is JESUS CHRIST, not Peter.
(Eph 2:20 KJV) And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
In that last passage, ALL the Apostles are called foundations, NOT JUST PETER, and it is CLEAR:: Jesus Christ is the Chief Cornerstone, NOT PETER, and ALL the Apostles are given the same rank and status, and PETER is NOT NAMED ONCE.
(Gal 2:7 KJV) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
(Gal 2:8 KJV) (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
(Gal 2:9 KJV) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
And Again, Paul clearly states PAUL is the Apostle to the Uncircumcision, and also noteworthy, in Gal 2:9, Look again what PAUL said::
(Gal 2:9 KJV) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Paul called 3 men, 3 Apostles the pillars of the Church, 3 men, not just Peter!!
Like I said before: Doctrine needs to be based on the Bible and what it says. People who read the Bible and interpret the Bible in light of their doctrine are in error. The Bible should tell you what your doctrine is, instead of your doctrine telling you what the Bible clearly says.
There are just too many ways to Biblically defeat the doctrine of Peter's supremacy in the Church. He WAS an Apostle, and that is greater than I ever will be, but as far as the FOUNDER or LEADER ALONE of the Church, someone who is considered the foundation of the Christian Church in Europe or something, that is just not Biblical.
You also just showed you do not know your Bible when you said this:
Christ did NOT state to refer to or consult Scripture for disputes and correction. He said to go to the Church as It is the final authority in Christianity.
Well, just what was Jesus doing here in this collection of verses then, if not using SCRIPTURE as the final authority on faith and morals?
(Mat 12:3 KJV) But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
(Mat 12:5 KJV) Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
(Mat 19:4 KJV) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
(Mat 21:16 KJV) And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?
(Mat 21:42 KJV) Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
(Mat 22:31 KJV) But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
(Mark 2:25 KJV) And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
(Mark 12:10 KJV) And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:
(Mark 12:26 KJV) And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
(Luke 4:16 KJV) And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
(Luke 6:3 KJV) And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungered, and they which were with him;
Jesus used Scriptue to defeat Satan, not the teachings of the Synagogue, nor the teachings of a future Church that we are disputing about:
(Mat 4:4 KJV) But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
(Mat 4:7 KJV) Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
(Mat 4:10 KJV) Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Paul's statement of the Church being the pillar and ground of the truth in 1 Timothy 3:15 is NOT the subject of what you claimed, either:
(1 Tim 3:15 KJV) But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
IT IS GOD that is the Pillar and ground of truth, and it is the SPIRITUAL Church that it is referring to, not any physical building, nor a any sinful man's creation of a denomination.
Looks like you're reading the Bible in light of the doctrine you were taught.
No, not at all, I am reading the Bible and taking it at it's word, that's all.
Keep reading, you might see it.
Just remember, each time the word ROCK is used, name ONE TIME where it CLEARLY is used for a man.
it never is.
NEVER
not once.
Only the RCC tries to tell you it is, that is my point. For Peter to be THE ROCK in that passage, you would have to ignore what was taught in all previous passages about WHO the ROCK was and what THE ROCK was about in order to believe that the ROCK in Matthew was Peter, and not a truth about God and who He is.
Starting right at Deuteronomy. Please re-read what I posted.
Dear Conservative til I die,
Thanks for your posts.
Ironically, the Bible tells us what was Jesus' day-to-day language, and we know it to be Aramaic.
sitetest
it is the RCC that twists scripture, read thee post and address the points made, do not repeat mantras, it only makes you look weak in your knowlege of the Bible
If you'd only posted Scripture that would be true. But you posted your interpretation along with it and it is your interpretation that is in "light of your doctrine".
I know many Protestants find this surprising, but your interpretation of Scripture is not the same as Scripture.
I didnt post my interpretation, I posted simple grammer rules and simple methods of diagrammng sentences.
It is plain to see if you just look and read it for its face value.
name ONE instance in Scripture where ROCK is used to describe a human.
Even in Matthew,
PETER is a STONE, not a rock!
For EACH instance in Scripture where ROCK is used in a spiritual context,
it is ALWAYS connected to WHO GOD IS,
NOT a human.
Not once, not ever.
Go back to Deuteronomy, that is where the references begin.
Follow what the BIBLE SAYS, not what you want it to say!
In order to defend the RCC doctine on this, you have to dismiss the entire Bible to make the point that Peter is THE ROCK
Whereas if you follow the BIBLE and the pattern God laid out centuries before in Scripture, THE ROCK is ALWAYS God and who GOD is, not a man, never a man, never will be a man.
There is plenty of evidence. Some people just choose to ignore it.
What about IS.51:1 and 2? Those passages say:
Give ear to me,you that follow that which is just,and you that seek the Lord:Look to the ROCK from which you were hewn,to the pit from which you were dug out.
Look to Abraham,your father,and to Sarah that bore you:for I called him alone,and blessed him and multiplied him."
So it seems to me that he referred to another man as Rock,and significantly,it was the other man whose name He changed,to reflect a new "assignment" from God.
BTW,I did not answer the post you directed to me because it seemed that you were responding to someone else's post.
Thank you for the first detailed site I have seen on this!
http://www.answers.com/topic/aramaic-of-jesus
While I wont argue that Aramaic was never spoken, (it probably sounded like I was, I didn't mean it to be something that I thought never happened), I will stick to my statement that Hebrew was the most common language Jesus spoke, but I will also expand on what I think but didn't say, that I recognize Jesus most likely certainly knew certain phrases or even spoke fluently those other languages like Aramaic and maybe even Greek.
My thoughts have to do with the language handed down through Israel, before all the conquests they endured over time; from Egypt, Greece, Persia, Syria, Assyria, there had to be a plethora of languages just like 1949 Israel had.
However, the first language of Abraham is what I would place my bet on with Jesus main spoken tongue. While I have no Biblical evidence verse by verse, when the languages that were created at Babel happened, Abraham's ancestors spoke the same language from that day, Abraham spoke that language they spoke, Abraham's sons spoke the language their father spoke, and so did their sons, and so on.
Other languages would be learned such as Egyptian during the period of slavery, but certainly the Israelites would have retained their own language, (like hispanics do today and Polish, and Vietnamese to name a few modern peoples here in the USA), especially proven thorough Moses written account of the first 5 books of the Bible and copied letter for letter over the years.
Certainly when Jesus spoke in the Temple at the start of His ministry, that was Hebrew for He read out of the scroll itself. If Hebrew was NOT the main language of the people, then where are the copies of Aramaic Scrolls of the Torah? Where are the copies of Aramaic writings of carvings?
I have been to the British Museum in London, and among the displays of the time are HEBREW carvings of letters that were etched in stone, to represent the people of Israel, and not any in Aramaic that I saw at all. In fact, in the book they published in 1991, "THE BIBLE IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM, I dont remember any Aramaic discoveries that were included at all. Certainly the British Museum would have doen so if it was a genuine Biblical language of the Jews at that time.
Certainly some words were in Aramaiac, for the examples shown on that site (Thank you, I never found it in my searches), but for these verses to be separated from all the others, to be written in Aramaic while others were in Greek, that tells us that Aramaic was NOT the common tongue or else all the verses would be in AAramaic and only small portions would be in Greek!
Think of that! If Aramaic was the main language of Jesus, then why are only certain verses highlighted with small particular phrases in Aramaic, and not the entire New Testament?
It would make no sense to highlight the smallest number of verses that have Aramaic phrases if the entire conversation was in Aramaic.
That logic alone tells me that Aramaic was NOT the main language of Jesus time.
|
Englishman's Greek Chapter 1 Introduction to the Language of the New Testament |
1A. The Original Languages of the Bible.
1B. The vast majority of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. There are a few exceptions where certain portions of the Old Testament were written in Aramaic (a language similar to Hebrew).
The portions of the O.T. written in Aramaic are these:
Daniel 2:4-7:28 (Read Daniel 2:4 and see the note in the Scofield Bible.)
Ezra 4:8-6:18 and Ezra 7:12-26
Genesis 31:47 (two words); Jeremiah 10:11
2B. The entire New Testament was written in Greek.
2A. New Testament Greek
1B. History
1C. Classical Greek (also called Attic Greek)
This was the language of Athens in her glory (Plato, Thucydides, Demosthenes).
2C. Hellenization was the adoption of the Greek language and culture by other countries as the result of the conquests of Alexander the Great (4th century B.C.).
3C. The language of the Roman Empire
The Romans conquered the world but they did not suppress the Greek language. The common language of the Roman empire was Greek not Latin (Latin was the official language). The Greek language was freely used and understood throughout the Roman empire, being spoken freely on the streets of Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Athens. It helped to unify the empire because everyone shared the same language.
4C. People living in the Roman empire were bilingual. They all spoke Greek, the common language, and they also each had their local language.
1D. What languages did the Lord speak? The languages of Palestine were Aramaic (the local language) and Greek (the common, universal language of the empire).
2D. See Acts 2:8-11 compared with Acts 2:14
These Jews all spoke their native language but they also could all understand Peter when he preached to them in Greek. Peter wrote 1 and 2 Peter in Greek also. As you would travel around the empire, you might not know a person's native language, but you could still communicate because everyone knew Greek.
3D. The Epistle to the Romans--What language was it written in? Since Paul wrote to the Romans, you might think that he would write in the native Italian language, which back then was Latin. But Paul did not do this. He wrote the Epistle to the Romans in Greek which the people of Rome understood, and which could also be understood by everyone else in the empire.
4D. The superscription on the cross was tri-lingual (John 19:20). 1) Hebrew (actually Aramaic) was the local language of Palestine; 2) Greek was the common, universal language of the empire; 3) Latin was the official (governmental) language of the empire.
2B. Koiné Greek (pronounced Koy-Nay)--A Common Language for the Common Man
1C. The Koiné period was from 300 B.C. to 500 A.D.
2C. What was Koiné Greek?
1D. Compare the Greek word koinonia koinwniva (1 John 1:3). It is translated "fellowship" and it means "sharing in COMMON." The key idea is "common." Koiné Greek simply means "common Greek."
2D. Koiné Greek was the LINGUA FRANCA of the Roman Empire. Lingua Franca means a language used as the common or commercial tongue among peoples of diverse speech and backgrounds.
3D. Koiné Greek was the normal spoken language of the Roman Empire (compare the word VERNACULAR which refers to the normal, spoken form of a language, the language used in common discourse).
Koiné Greek was the common language of everyday life. It was the language of ordinary street conversation. It was the common language of the masses, the natural and living language that was used during this period.
4D. Koiné Greek was different from classical Greek, somewhat analogous to the way the English commonly used today is different from Shakespearian English (even the way modern English is different from KJV English). The people of the first century might read Plato's Greek and they could understand it, but they certainly did not speak Plato's Greek at home or in the market place! In a similar way, we could read Shakespeare and understand it somewhat, but we would not use that kind of English in our common communication. There is sometimes a wide gap between the language of literature and the language of everyday living.
5D. God used Koiné Greek as the means through which He communicated His gospel to men. The Bible is an uncommon Book communicated in a common language to common people with a common need for the salvation that is found in our Lord Jesus Christ.
The fact that the gospel message was penned and spoken in Koiné Greek was a huge advantage for the early missionary movement of the first century and beyond. Paul could travel throughout the Roman Empire and could go to various countries without ever having a language problem or without ever needing an interpreter. Everyone could understand the common Greek which Paul preached and which was the language of the New Testament books.
3A. The Old Testament in Greek: THE SEPTUAGINT (abbreviated as LXX).
1B. What was the Septuagint? It was a translation of the Old Testament (from Hebrew to Greek) so that the Jewish people living in Greek speaking countries could understand the Scriptures.
2B. The date of this translation: Approximately 250 B.C. [Note: There are some "KJV Only" advocates who teach that the Septuagint was not completed until after the NT books were written, but this theory is totally unfounded and contrary to manuscript evidence.]
3B. This translation was done in Alexandria (Egypt).
4B. The origin of this translation: "Uncertainty is attached to the origin of the LXX, and its beginning is enshrouded in legend. Its alleged seventy-two translators (six from each of the twelve tribes) is traditional, the number seventy (LXX) apparently being an approximation for seventy-two; or the number seventy may have developed in the course of tradition" (Unger).
5B. The language of the LXX was Koine Greek, the same kind of Greek as found in the Greek New Testament.
6B. The influence of the LXX in the days of Christ: The majority of NT quotations and allusions are from the LXX. The Jews considered it a valuable translation of the Old Testament and they esteemed it highly. The Lord Jesus and the apostles quoted from the LXX (though not always).
7B. The value of the LXX: It is an ancient translation. As such it has been helpful in the science and art of textual criticism as applied to the Old Testament. The LXX also helps in understanding many New Testament words. The meaning of words is determined by usage and as we see how certain words are used in the LXX, this can shed light on the meaning of these same words as they are used in the NT. The LXX also forms a connecting link between the OT and the NT (one complete Bible in the same language).
8B. The limitations of the LXX: No translation is perfect and this is certainly true of the LXX. "Surveying the translation in its entirety, it may be said that it varies in its standard of excellence. The Pentateuch is on the whole a close and serviceable translation. The Psalms, on the other hand, and the book of Isaiah show obvious signs of incompetence" (Unger).
9B. Lessons we can learn from the LXX: 1) No translation made by man is perfect; some are better than others. The LXX is an excellent translation of the first five books, but not so good in other places. 2) Although the LXX was far from perfect, the Lord Jesus used it at times (quoted from it, etc.) and we have no record that He never condemned it. Perhaps there is a lesson is this for those today who claim that a certain Bible translation is a perfect translation and teach that every other translation should be utterly condemned. Was this really the attitude of the Lord Jesus?
| The Middletown Bible Church 349 East Street Middletown, CT 06457 (860) 346-0907 |
Back to Englishman's Greek Table of Contents |
(Isa 51:1 KJV) Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged.
(Isa 51:2 KJV) Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.
That rock sounds more like the place of despair or distress where they are stuck, where they are placed between, look at the second half of the verse, was Abraham also the hole in the pit??
No, Abraham is not connected to the word ROCK here, where did you get that? Rock here represents a situation, a place of being, an anology of where the state of Israel is in the time of coming judgement.
Rock here is not Abraham! :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.