Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Papacy in Scripture More Than Matthew 16
Tim Staples' Blog ^ | March 26, 2014 | Tim Staples

Posted on 05/01/2014 3:25:30 AM PDT by GonzoII

The Papacy in Scripture – More Than Matthew 16

In an earlier blog post, I made the point that the role of St. Peter and his successors is made remarkably clear in Matthew 16:18-19 and its immediate context:

And I tell you, you are Peter (Gr.—petros—‘rock’), and on this rock (Gr.—petra—‘rock’) I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Jesus here promises infallible authority to Peter that would empower him to speak in the place of Christ, or as his vicar on earth. Catholics believe just what the text says. When St. Peter (and his successors) “binds” something on earth, it is “bound” in heaven. That’s definitive authority–infallible authority–with the power of heaven to back it up!

A response I get fairly regularly in response to this is to claim the Church is using “this one text” to try and establish a dogma.

My first thought in response is always to say, ”How many times does God have to tell you something before you will believe and obey it?” After all, Jesus only gave us the proper form for baptism one time in Matthew 28:19, and yet all Christians believe it to be the proper form nonetheless.

Nevertheless, I do think this is a valid question that deserves an answer: Is Matthew 16 the only text that demonstrates the truth of Peter’s primacy and of the papacy in Scripture?

The answer is a resounding no!

The List Goes On and On

Below is a list of biblical texts all related to the primacy of St. Peter and the Papacy. Word count limitations prevent me from quoting all of them; you’ll have to do some homework and look up some of these texts yourself. But when you do, you’ll notice there is not a single “rock” to be found among them.

Mind you, this is not an exhaustive list. There are more biblical texts we could take a look at. Consider this my top 18 list:

1. Matt. 14:23-27: St. Peter is uniquely and miraculously empowered by Jesus to walk on water, and when his faith begins to falter, our Lord does not allow him to go under. This is a prelude to Jesus promising to communicate his authority that can never fail to Peter in Matt. 16. The gift of the papacy is here assured not to depend upon the person of St. Peter or of his successors, but on the promise and power of Christ.

2. Matt. 17:24-27: After receiving the promise of authority in Matt. 16, St. Peter is once again given supernatural power, and this time to provide for both himself and Jesus when the first-century equivalent of the I.R.S. comes calling. Peter acts as Christ’s “vicar,” or, in the place of Jesus, in miraculous fashion, once again, guaranteed by Jesus not to fail. He “pays the tax” for both Jesus and himself. If you don’t think this is miraculous, it’s almost April 15 right now. God ahead down to the closest fishin’ hole, cast a line in, catch a fish, and let’s see if there’s enough money in the fish’s mouth to pay your taxes, let alone yours and someone else’s.

3. Luke 5:1-10: The multitudes that gather to hear Jesus at the shore of Lake Gennesaret press in on him so that he has to step off shore into one of two boats that are there docked. The boat he steps into just happens to be Peter’s boat. Hmmmm. Jesus then proclaims the gospel from the barque of Peter (5:1-3)! Sound familiar? Then, Jesus tells Peter to put out into the deep and let down his nets for a catch. Can you imagine the people present? They must have been thinking that Jesus was nuts! Multitudes have to just stand there and watch St. Peter go fishing? St. Peter then says, “We have toiled all night and caught nothing” (vs. 5), yet he lets down the nets at the command of Jesus. When they catch so many fish they need to bring out the other boat to haul in the load, Peter realizes that Jesus is calling him to more than just catching catfish! These fish are metaphors for Christians. Peter says, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man” (vs.8)! But Jesus responds, “Do not be afraid; henceforth you will be catching men.”

Thus, St. Peter receives a unique and singular calling from Christ to be the fisher of men. And once again, Peter receives supernatural power that cannot fail to fulfill his unique calling.

4. Luke 22:24-32: In this text, Jesus teaches the apostles the true nature of authority, especially in verses 24-28. True authority in the New Covenant is commanded to be servant of all. He will speak with infallible authority just as Christ did, but he must also wash the feet of his brothers just as Christ did. In this context, Jesus said to the apostles:

[A]s my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you (Gr.—humas, plural—“you all”), that he might sift you (Gr.—plural again) like wheat, but I have prayed for you (Gr.—sou, singular—Peter alone) that your faith (Gr.—singular again) may not fail; and when you (Gr.—singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

In the context of committing his kingdom authority to the apostles to govern the church (the “Israel of God”—see Gal. 6:16), Jesus especially prays for Peter so that he may be the source of strength and unity for the rest of the apostles. If the apostles want to be protected from the devil’s attempts to divide and destroy them and the Church, they must be in communion with Peter. And notice, Jesus says specifically to Peter, that, literally from the Greek text, “the faith of you [Peter] will not fail.” This is precisely what the Catholic Church has been teaching for 2,000 years!

5. John 10:16: Jesus prophesied:

And I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, and one shepherd (emphasis added).

Who is this prophetic shepherd? The answer seems simple. And on one level it is. Jesus declared himself to be “the good shepherd” (Gr.—poimein—“shepherd” or “pastor”) in John 10:14. Yet, if we dig deeper into the text we discover another meaning as well. In the context of prophesying about this “one flock” and “one shepherd,” Jesus says he must gather “other sheep” referring to the gentiles. Who does our Lord use as the shepherd to bring this prophecy to pass? The answer is found in our next two texts.

6. John 21:1-17: Here, we find another example of Jesus aiding the fishing of the apostles who “caught nothing” all night long (vs. 3). At the command of Jesus they let down their nets and catch an astonishing 153 “large fish” (vs. 11). When Jesus commands the net to be hauled ashore, St. Peter heaves the entire net of fish to shore by himself. No man can lift that size of a catch out of the water and on to the shore by himself. If you take these words literally to mean Peter actually did this, it seems Peter was given supernatural strength to do what no man could naturally accomplish. Fish are symbols representing the faithful (recall Luke 5:8-10). And the symbol of “the net” is used elsewhere in the New Testament for the Church (see Matt. 13:47). Not only is Peter’s ability to carry these “fish” (all the faithful) a miracle, but the fact that the “net” is not broken is also extraordinary. The message seems to be that the Church Jesus establishes containing all of God’s faithful with Peter packing the power will never be destroyed!

It is in this context that Jesus then asks St. Peter three times, “Do you love me… Do you love me… Do you love me?” When Peter responds in the affirmative the second time, Jesus responds by commanding Peter to “tend (Gr.–poimaine—’shepherd’) my sheep” (vs. 16). Jesus the shepherd here commissions Peter to be the prophetic shepherd of John 10:16 to shepherd the entire people of God!

How do we know Peter was called to shepherd the entire flock? I would only ask this: How many of the sheep belong to Jesus? Answer? All of them. So how many of his sheep did Jesus entrust to St. Peter to shepherd? Answer? All of them.

7. Matt. 10:2: In the context of the calling and listing of the twelve apostles, Peter is referred to as “the first” apostle. We know he was not the “first apostle” chronologically. John 1:37-41 tells us Andrew believed Jesus was the Messiah first and told his brother Peter about him. Andrew would be the “first” chronologically. Peter was “first” in primacy.

Though the Greek word, protos (first), can certainly mean “first” chronologically, it can also denote “chief,” “superior” or “the first in rank.” In Acts 28:7, for example, protos is used to describe “the chief man of the Island, Publius.” In Matthew 20:27, we discover, “Whoever would be first among you must be your slave.” Luke 15:22 adds: “Bring forth the best robe…” And I Tim. 1:15 provides: “And I am the foremost of sinners.” All of these texts use protos in the sense of “chief” or “superior.”

Moreover, Christ is referred to as prototokos, or “first-begotten” in Col. 1:15. Here St. Paul uses protos in order to teach us about Christ’s eternal generation, which has been accomplished outside of time. He is; therefore, the creator and the one who has “preeminence” over all things, according to the text. Colossians 1:15-18 reads:

[Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born (Gr.—prototokos) of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth…He is before all things…He is the head of the body, the church…that in everything he might be pre-eminent (Gr.—proteuon, a verb with the same root as protos and prototokos).

Thus, in a notably direct and overt manner, by referring to St. Peter as the “first” apostle, St. Matthew presents Peter (and his successors) just as we see him represented in the rest of the New Testament; he is revealed to be “chief” of the apostles, or to have a primacy of authority over all the apostles and, by extension, over the entire church.

8. Acts 1:15-26: 

During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place).  He said, “My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus … For it is written in the Book of Psalms:  “Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it” (citing Psalm 69:25).  And: “May another take his office” (citing Psalm 109:8). Therefore it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us … become with us a witness to his resurrection.  So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias.  Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two you have chosen …”  Then they gave lots … and the lots fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.

It is St. Peter who is clearly in charge in choosing and ordaining a new apostle to replace Judas. He stands in the midst of the apostles and gives an authoritative interpretation of Psalm 69:25 and Psalm 109:8. And mind you, these are not exactly obvious interpretations of these texts. Psalm 69:25 uses the plural, yet Peter applies it singularly to Peter. The context of Psalm 109:8 also uses the plural (see verse 20). This is not exactly self-evident. Yet, St. Peter then declares the apostles must choose a successor of Judas based upon these two texts. And there is nary a question from the rest of the apostles like, “Hey, Peter, that’s a pretty shaky interpretation of those two texts. What hermeneutical principles are you using, anyway?”

In the case of St. Peter, the old saying is true, “It is my (Peter’s) way or the highway.”

9. Acts 2:14-41:

It is St. Peter who is in charge at Pentecost and preaches the first sermon whereby 3,000 are baptized. And you’ll notice a theme we are going to often see in the Book of Acts (and in the Gospels as well). Peter is listed as a category all by himself. Acts 2 says, “But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them.” There’s Peter alone, and then there is “the eleven.”

10. Acts 3:1-10:

Peter and John are “about to go into the temple,” when a man who was “lame from birth” called out to them begging alms. We note that it is Peter who speaks and it is Peter who performs the first miracle in the Acts of the Apostles. Another “first” for St. Peter. We will see more.

11. Acts 4:3-12:

When St. Peter and St. John are arrested and called before the Sanhedrin, it is St. Peter in verse 8, who speaks for both and preaches boldly of Christ and the name of Jesus.

12. Acts 5:1-15: It is St. Peter who clearly depicted as in charge of the Church in collecting funds for world evangelism. And it is St. Peter who pronounces God’s judgment on Ananias and Sapphira, speaking for God in the process. And it is then, in verse 15, that after seeing “more than ever” numbers of converts flood into the Church, that the sick were brought to him in hope that even his shadow might pass over them so that they may be healed.

13. Acts 5:29: After the apostles were arrested and then miraculously set free by the angel of the Lord, they are before the Sanhedrin for the second time. St. Luke records:

Peter and the apostles said in reply, “We must obey God rather then men.”

Once again, St. Peter is set apart from the rest of the apostles. If he was just one of the apostles with no special position St. Luke would not set him apart like he does. Why does he do this? Because St. Peter has the keys of the kingdom (cf. Matthew 16:15-19). He is the Shepherd over the whole flock of God’s people (cf. John 10:11-16, 21:15-17).

In fact, every time St. Peter is mentioned in sacred Scripture with the other apostles, he is either listed first (see Matthew 10:2, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:13-16 and Acts 1:13, etc.), or given a special place apart from the other apostles (see I Cor. 9:5, Mark 1:36, Mark 16:7 and Luke 9:32) except for one example in Galatians 2:9. This one example is often used by non-Catholics to demonstrate absolute equality among the apostles or even to prove St. James to have been the true leader of the early Church rather than St. Peter.

And when they perceived the grace that was given to me (St. Paul), James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the gentiles and they to the circumcised.

A closer look at the context clears up this apparent difficulty. In Galatians 2, St. Paul is speaking in the context of the church at Jerusalem. We know from Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History …) that James was the first bishop of Jerusalem after the apostles dispersed throughout the world.  It would not be surprising to list James first in the context of the diocese (or city, as it were then) over which he presides. Even today, if there were a Council held in a diocese other than Rome, the local bishop would normally be given a special place of honor in some distinct manner. This, in fact, has been the case many times in the history of the Church. James should be given a place of honor because he is the head of local Church there in Jerusalem.

This is the context of Galatians 2. However, notice the difference between this second visit St. Paul made to Jerusalem and his first visit fourteen years earlier (cf. Galatians 2:1).

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother (Gal. 1:18-19)… Then, after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas… and when they perceived the grace of God was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship (Gal. 1:18-2:9).

St. Paul originally went to Jerusalem not to see James, though he did see James. He went to confer with St. Peter. After receiving revelation from God, St. Peter is the first man St. Paul wants to see. This was not just a casual meeting. It lasted fifteen days. It was fourteen years later (cf. Gal. 2:1), after St. Peter had gone and established his see in Antioch (cf. Gal. 2:11, Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History), that St. Paul lists James first in the context of the Church of Jerusalem.

An interesting not: There are four lists of apostles given in Scripture. Matthew 10:2-4 (which we saw before), Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:13-16 and Acts 1:13. In every case St. Peter is first and Judas is last (except in Acts, Judas is not listed at all because he had committed suicide). In oriental culture, the listing of names is important. It connotes position and honor. Notice in all the lists the order is generally identical. There is a bit of juxtaposition in St. Mark’s list, but St. Peter’s place is always the same. This is reminiscient of the early Church. There was some juxtaposition in the early Church when it came to the second and third place of honor in the Church, but never a doubt who was at the helm:  The Bishop of Rome.

14. Acts 8:14-23:

In this text we see St. Peter leading when he and St. John confirm the new converts in Samaria because of the evangelistic efforts of St. Phillip. And once again it is St. Peter who takes the helm in pronouncing judgment on Simon the sorcerer who wanted to buy the power to confirm or convey the Holy Spirit (verses 18-23).

15. Acts 9:32:

Here we have an interesting little passage in verse 32 most pass over too quickly.

As Peter was passing through every region, he went down to the holy ones living in Lydda (NAB).

Here we have St. Peter making his pastoral rounds. To what part of the Church?  All of it!  Why?  St. Peter is the shepherd of the whole world.  He then proceeds to do another first.  He raises Tabitha from the dead in Joppa (cf. 9:40-43).

16. Acts 10:1-48:

In this chapter from the Acts of the Apostles, Jesus personally sees to the fulfillment of the prophecy of John 10:16, which we saw above. He appears to St. Peter and commands him to bring the gospel to the gentiles by way of Cornelius, the centurion. When Peter then “commanded [Cornelius and his household] to be baptized” in Acts 10:48, the prophecy of John 10:16 was fulfilled. There was now one fold and one shepherd for Jews and Gentiles. That ministry has continued to this day in the successors of St. Peter, the bishops of Rome.

It would be easy to pass over this text and miss its importance. It is most significant that it is St. Peter to whom God gives a vision to allow the gentiles to be baptized and enjoy full membership in the Church. This was a radical move! If you think we have a problem with racism in the 21st century, we have nothing on first century opinion of the gentiles!

If we read further, into Acts 11:18, after the other apostles and other disciples heard Peter declare what God had done, they say, in chapter 11:18:

When they heard this they were silenced. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life.”

They heard St. Peter speak and the question was settled. The question would continue to plague the Church with reference to how the gentiles and Jews were to harmonize in the Church. But the question of Gentiles being in the Church was settled by St. Peter and the question would not be raised again. Peter had spoken, the rest of the Church “held their peace.”  Would to God we today would do the same!

17. Acts 12: 3-11:

In this text, St. Peter is arrested again. Notice that the entire Church then goes to ‘round the clock prayer for him until he is released miraculously. This is not recorded to have been the case when St. James or any others were arrested. When the head of a fledgling Church struggling for its existence is put in jail, you better believe everyone is praying!

18. Acts 15: 1-12:

The ministry of St. Peter as “the shepherd” of the Universal Church continues. When there was a heresy spreading in the church at Antioch (and elsewhere) so widespread and problematic that Paul and Barnabas could not quell the resulting confusion, the church there decided to “go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question” (vss. 1-2). The question concerned salvation and the Old Covenant law in relation to the gospel. Some among “believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, ‘It is necessary to circumcise…and…to keep the law of Moses’ (vs. 5) or else you ‘cannot be saved’” (vs. 1). In particular, they spoke of the gentiles who were converting to Christ, but the same would apply to all. The real question was: Are Christians saved by the grace of Christ in the New Covenant or must they obey the Old Covenant as well for salvation? The first Church Council (of Jerusalem) was convened and the theological question was put to rest by the pronouncement of St. Peter.

The apostles and elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice…that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe…we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” And all the assembly kept silence… (Vs. 6-12, emphasis added)

Like we saw in Acts 11:18, when the Pope finally speaks on a matter, the rest are silent. And so it should be.

If you like this and you would like to learn more, click here.



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: acts; actsoftheapostles; bible; gogdsword; papacy; pope; scripture; scriptures; stpeter; timstaples
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 461-480 next last
"when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said...But we believe...Then all the multitude kept silence"

1 posted on 05/01/2014 3:25:30 AM PDT by GonzoII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

OK, how do we reconcile Papal infallibility with some of the “bad” Popes through the ages?


2 posted on 05/01/2014 3:49:40 AM PDT by NY.SS-Bar9 (Those that vote for a living outnumber those that work for one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NY.SS-Bar9

You don’t because the doctrine of papal infallibility only came about in the middle of the 19th century.

CC


3 posted on 05/01/2014 4:02:22 AM PDT by Celtic Conservative (tease not the dragon for thou art crunchy when roasted and taste good with ketchup)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Celtic Conservative

Convenient.


4 posted on 05/01/2014 4:12:33 AM PDT by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret), "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

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.

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.


5 posted on 05/01/2014 4:16:47 AM PDT by RaceBannon (Lk 16:31 And he said unto him If they hear not Moses and the prophets neither will theybe persuaded)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NY.SS-Bar9

Papal infallibility isn’t about personal holiness.


6 posted on 05/01/2014 4:20:03 AM PDT by JPX2011
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

if the bible was as clear as you state there wouldn’t be so many interpretations. Appreciate the effort though.


7 posted on 05/01/2014 4:25:17 AM PDT by JPX2011
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NY.SS-Bar9

You’re confusing infallibility with impeccability.

What was promised to Peter was doctrinal authority: “Whatever you declare bound on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you declare loosed on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”

St. Peter was NOT promised that he would not sin, and he did sin, and St. Paul confronted him about it. St. Peter established the correct doctrine that gentiles shall not be bound by kosher laws, yet he allowed Judaizers to impose kosher on them anyway. Those who see this episode as showng St. Paul with authority aren’t paying attention: it’s St. Peter’s doctrine, and St. Paul doesn’t correct the Judaizers; he reminds St. Peter of his duty to.


8 posted on 05/01/2014 5:08:52 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JPX2011; Gamecock; metmom
if the bible was as clear as you state there wouldn’t be so many interpretations.

The Catholic Church (or at least it's FRoman Catholic adherents) claims to have written the Bible, and claims that the Catholic Church preceded the Bible. Why would the Catholic Church write for itself an "unclear" book capable of "so many interpretations"? Did they write it in code?

9 posted on 05/01/2014 5:12:09 AM PDT by Alex Murphy ("the defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Prohttp://fraangelicoinstitute.files.wordprtestant Brigades")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NY.SS-Bar9

“OK, how do we reconcile Papal infallibility with some of the “bad” Popes through the ages?”

No reconciliation is necessary because those are two different things. Papal infallibility is about the office not the man. “Bad” popes is all about the man and not the office.


10 posted on 05/01/2014 5:13:19 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NY.SS-Bar9

Papal Infallibility is a term that applies to the teachings of the Church.

It has nothing to do with the nature of the men leading the Church.

As for bad Popes and sinful clergy, Jesus himself prepared us for this when
in he brought Judas into his inner circle.

Every Pope is and will continue to be a sinner. None of the Popes, even the “bad” Popes, (less than 4% of the 265) ever changed the original teachings of the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains the teachings of the Church. You will not find the abuses of power of the few bad popes reaffirmed in any manner in the Catechism.


11 posted on 05/01/2014 5:14:44 AM PDT by motoman (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Celtic Conservative

“You don’t because the doctrine of papal infallibility only came about in the middle of the 19th century.”

Papal infallibility was openly debated already in the 13th century.


12 posted on 05/01/2014 5:14:50 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NY.SS-Bar9
OK, how do we reconcile Papal infallibility with some of the “bad” Popes through the ages?

Infallibility is not the same as impeccability. We do acknowledge that there have been sinful popes, yet we see that even these did not teach error. Even Peter had to be corrected by Paul in his personal conduct but we still accept his letters as the infallible word of God. Unlike how Protestant teaching has been constantly changing from the beginning, Catholic teaching has remained the same for two thousand years despite the bad popes.

13 posted on 05/01/2014 5:15:30 AM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

“Why would the Catholic Church write for itself an “unclear” book capable of “so many interpretations”?”

For the Church, on all essential points, it isn’t unclear.


14 posted on 05/01/2014 5:17:05 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior

Absolutely false. In the 19th century, Vatican I defined more clearly than ever the conditions which must exist for papal authority to be infallible. It was not a new doctrine, however.


15 posted on 05/01/2014 5:17:53 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NY.SS-Bar9
OK, how do we reconcile Papal infallibility with some of the “bad” Popes through the ages?

Sitting in the Chair of St Peter somehow magically makes you a better person, rendering you incapable of speaking falsely on the subjects of faith and morals.

You know, like Pope Francis.

16 posted on 05/01/2014 5:23:24 AM PDT by Alex Murphy ("the defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Prohttp://fraangelicoinstitute.files.wordprtestant Brigades")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

Jesus did not name Peter, “Petros!” He named him “Cephas!” (John 1:42, Galatians 2:7-14, I Cor. 1:11-13, I Cor. 3:21, I Cor. 9:5 and I Cor. 15:5). The bible is abundantly clear on that Peter was actually named Cephas. “Petros” is a male form of “Petra,” the Greek translation of Cephas, which means “rock,” and never “stone.” EVERY SINGLE time the word “Cephas” in translated from the Hebrew bible into Greek, it is translated as “Petra,” except when it refers to Peter. The Hebrew word for “stone” is translated consistently as “Lithos.”

I love these bible “experts” who don’t know a blessed thing about Greek or Hebrew except what they read from Protestant apologists’ translations.


17 posted on 05/01/2014 5:29:55 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Therefore,
faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith,
to the glory of God our saviour,
for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
for the salvation of the christian people,
with the approval of the sacred council,
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.


18 posted on 05/01/2014 5:31:42 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: All

Popcorn.gif


19 posted on 05/01/2014 5:34:04 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Ok, so let us say that you have convinced me that Peter was the head of the Church which I already believed.

How does that make him a Pope?

How does it make the Pope his successor?

Where is Peter ever called Pope?.

Why did Jesus command us not to call no one on earth pope?.


20 posted on 05/01/2014 5:36:59 AM PDT by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 461-480 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson