"And upon Cephas, I will build My Church..."

[2ndGen]

Matthew 7
24
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:

Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Popes:
No. Name Reigned From-Reigned To

1. St. Peter 32-67
2. St. Linus 67-76
3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) 76-88
4. St. Clement I 88-97
5. St. Evaristus 97-105
6. St. Alexander I 105-115…

“Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be;
even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
Ignatius of Antioch
Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2
(c. A.D. 110)

25
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.

Papacy…
#1. St. Peter 32-67 -------------->#265. Benedict XVI 2005-current

26
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:

27
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. **

Post Protestanism:
Divided Christianity
According to David Barrett et al, editors of the “World Christian Encyclopedia:
A comparative survey of churches and religions - AD 30 to 2200,” there are
**34,000 separate Christian groups **in the world today.
“Over half of them are independent churches that are not interested in linking with the big denominations.”

religioustolerance.org/chr_divi.htm

 

[1234]

Don’t quote Ignatius’ letters. They are widely felt to be either forgeries or full of later interpolations. Check Wikipedia and start from there. If you’re not a scholar and expert in early Christian writings, you’re in trouble when you quote writings attributed to early Christian and late Roman writers.

‘Catholic’ in those days meant a religious sect open to circumcised and uncircumcised alike, not restricted to Jews. A ‘universal’ religion. It doesn’t refer to the Roman Catholic church vs. the Protestants, Quakers, or Unitarians.

Quoting anything without commentary on this forum will convince no one; this forum has a lot of smart people contributing to it.

 

[2ndGen]

Don’t quote Ignatius’ letters. They are widely felt to be either forgeries or full of later interpolations. Check Wikipedia and start from there. If you’re not a scholar and expert in early Christian writings, you’re in trouble when you quote writings attributed to early Christian and late Roman writers.

‘Catholic’ in those days meant a religious sect open to circumcised and uncircumcised alike, not restricted to Jews. A ‘universal’ religion. It doesn’t refer to the Roman Catholic church vs. the Protestants, Quakers, or Unitarians.

Quoting anything without commentary on this forum will convince no one; this forum has a lot of smart people contributing to it.

http://66.70.186.203/images/2245-chimp_scratch_head.jpg

.

 

[MrStain]

Don’t quote Ignatius’ letters. They are widely felt to be either forgeries or full of later interpolations. Check Wikipedia and start from there. If you’re not a scholar and expert in early Christian writings, you’re in trouble when you quote writings attributed to early Christian and late Roman writers.

‘Catholic’ in those days meant a religious sect open to circumcised and uncircumcised alike, not restricted to Jews. A ‘universal’ religion. It doesn’t refer to the Roman Catholic church vs. the Protestants, Quakers, or Unitarians.

Quoting anything without commentary on this forum will convince no one; this forum has a lot of smart people contributing to it.

I see nothing wrong with 2ndGen quoting Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnaeans. To use your own recommended source ,(wikipedia link) that specific letter is considered to be one of the seven that are authentic. Just because they are “widely felt” to be forgeries by some unknown group doesn’t make them so. And no, I am no scholar in early Christian writings, but calling them into doubt just because they are early Christian writings would lead me to believe you would call into doubt the entire New Testament. Is that correct?

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Check Wikipedia and start from there. If you’re not a scholar and expert in early Christian writings, you’re in trouble…

Ah yes the great scholarly work of wikipedia.

God bless

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Don’t quote Ignatius’ letters. They are widely felt to be either forgeries or full of later interpolations. Check Wikipedia and start from there. If you’re not a scholar and expert in early Christian writings, you’re in trouble when you quote writings attributed to early Christian and late Roman writers.

‘Catholic’ in those days meant a religious sect open to circumcised and uncircumcised alike, not restricted to Jews. A ‘universal’ religion. It doesn’t refer to the Roman Catholic church vs. the Protestants, Quakers, or Unitarians.

Quoting anything without commentary on this forum will convince no one; this forum has a lot of smart people contributing to it.

yes you are correct about ‘catholic’ meaning orthodox but in those days there WEREN’T Protestants, Quakers or Unitarians.

there was only one undivided sacramental church, east and west.

and at the same time i can’t believe you are telling people to ignore the writings of the church fathers while recommending wikipedia as a reliable source. even early forgeries give us a glimpse into what the church believed.

 

[2ndGen]

To all my brethren…

:bowdown2:

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Note that Wikipedia is the latest scientific authority for bashing the Church.

The 67 professors who protested Benedict XVI’s scheduled visit to Rome’s La Sapienza University based their letter on an erroneous report from the Italian-language Wikipedia, affirmed L’Osservatore Romano.

 

[2ndGen]

Wikipedia…“not” a bad source “if” you know how to read it.

First of all, (unlike in the past) now, anything posted there is subject to confirmation.

If there is and unsustainable article, it is flagged so that readers know that it is “not” a confirmed story.

Also, the true articles submit refence links where one can confirm what they read there just to be sure.

Like anything in life…one must read the fine print.

 

[Rolltide]

Don’t quote Ignatius’ letters. They are widely felt to be either forgeries or full of later interpolations. Check Wikipedia and start from there. If you’re not a scholar and expert in early Christian writings, you’re in trouble when you quote writings attributed to early Christian and late Roman writers.

You are going to rail on us for not being scholars and experts, and then in the same breath, refer us to WIKIPEDIA as a reliable historical source?!?!?!

As an historian at a major private southern college, I’ll just say that there ARE indeed many legitimate experts on this board and leave it at that.

 

[2ndGen]

You are going to rail on us for not being scholars and experts, and then in the same breath, refer us to WIKIPEDIA as a reliable historical source?!?!?!

As an historian at a major private southern college, I’ll just say that there ARE indeed many legitimate experts on this board and leave it at that.

Get that teacher and apple!

(But don’t worry, it’s not a fruit from the tree in the garden!)

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Don’t quote Ignatius’ letters. They are widely felt to be either forgeries or full of later interpolations. Check Wikipedia and start from there. If you’re not a scholar and expert in early Christian writings, you’re in trouble when you quote writings attributed to early Christian and late Roman writers.

‘Catholic’ in those days meant a religious sect open to circumcised and uncircumcised alike, not restricted to Jews. A ‘universal’ religion. It doesn’t refer to the Roman Catholic church vs. the Protestants, Quakers, or Unitarians.

Quoting anything without commentary on this forum will convince no one; this forum has a lot of smart people contributing to it.

I dont think its kind to say who or not to Quote on this forum, its up to the individual to reference his authority on ones comments. Yours just happen to be Wikipedia, ( I am not going to go their about your Wikepedia because I would just be unkind as you were). So If you contest a statement, do so, I encourage you, but please dont tell us who to quote and not to, because you may hold Wikepedia as an authority to your standards against, historical figures and eyewitness accounts, not to mention 2000 years of contested facts, that are still here. If your up to challenge, please do so…

 

[JMBNH]

The short forms of 7 of St Ignatius’s Epistles, including the quoted one, are almost universally considered genuine. The only people that doubt them are ones uncomfortable with how Catholic they are for a direct disciple of St John the Apostle and Evangelist writing at the turn of the 2nd Century.

 

[2ndGen]

:clapping:

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi

I would like to copy/paste here an argument given by our friend 1234 on another thread:

I have always thought it odd that Jesus, in conferring such an important office on Simon bar Jonah, chose a Greek name for him, Peter, and used a pun on the Greek meaning of that name, referring to Peter, as petros means ‘rock’ in Greek.

Jesus was a Jew and spoke Aramaic. I doubt if he was fluent in Greek and that he would have given Simon a Greek name, punning on its Greek meaning as he did so.

The obvious conclusion is that the passage was written long after the early Christians had given up on the Jews, were writing in Greek (all the gospels are in Greek) for their Greek converts, and Peter has assumed leadership of the early new religion. There is nothing about this passage which suggests that Jesus ever spoke it in the manner that it has survived.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3318902&postcount=36

I think he has a valid point there.

Thanks

 

[Fuerza]

Hi

I would like to copy/paste here an argument given by our friend 1234 on another thread:

I have always thought it odd that Jesus, in conferring such an important office on Simon bar Jonah, chose a Greek name for him, Peter, and used a pun on the Greek meaning of that name, referring to Peter, as petros means ‘rock’ in Greek.

Jesus was a Jew and spoke Aramaic. I doubt if he was fluent in Greek and that he would have given Simon a Greek name, punning on its Greek meaning as he did so.

The obvious conclusion is that the passage was written long after the early Christians had given up on the Jews, were writing in Greek (all the gospels are in Greek) for their Greek converts, and Peter has assumed leadership of the early new religion. There is nothing about this passage which suggests that Jesus ever spoke it in the manner that it has survived.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3318902&postcount=36

I think he has a valid point there.

Thanks

I always thought that Jesus conferred the Aramaic name Cephas/Kephas on Simon, which means exactly the same thing as Peter. Therefore, when it was written down in Greek, the Greek form was used. I see no problem with this.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

A survey of early church fathers commentaries[1] shows seventeen Fathers thought of the rock as Peter, **forty-four **thought it referred to Peter’s confession of faith, **sixteen **thought Christ Himself was the rock, while **eight **thought that the rock meant all of the Apostles. Thus 80% of these Church Fathers did not recognize ‘the rock’ as meaning Peter alone. Such a claim of papal commission therefore is not so clear-cut.

[1] Jean de Launoy Epist. Vii., Opp. Vol. V., pt 2. p.99, Geneva, 1731 quoted in Whelton, M., (1998 ), “Two Paths: Papal Monarchy : Collegial Tradition”, p27.

Quoting from or referring to the 20 percent while ignoring the 80% really is not all that impressive at all.

Note: Jean de Launoy was a catholic scholar — it would be good to read his works in English sometime.

 

[puzzleannie]

Don’t quote Ignatius’ letters. They are widely felt to be either forgeries or full of later interpolations. Check Wikipedia and start from there. If
.

don’t waste your time on Wiki if you are a serious researcher do real research, Wiki is not a primary source any more than the Ency Brittanica is.

 

[mtr01]

A survey of early church fathers commentaries[1] shows seventeen Fathers thought of the rock as Peter, **forty-four **thought it referred to Peter’s confession of faith, **sixteen **thought Christ Himself was the rock, while **eight **thought that the rock meant all of the Apostles. Thus 80% of these Church Fathers did not recognize ‘the rock’ as meaning Peter alone. Such a claim of papal commission therefore is not so clear-cut.

[1] Jean de Launoy Epist. Vii., Opp. Vol. V., pt 2. p.99, Geneva, 1731 quoted in Whelton, M., (1998 ), “Two Paths: Papal Monarchy : Collegial Tradition”, p27.

Quoting from or referring to the 20 percent while ignoring the 80% really is not all that impressive at all.

Note: Jean de Launoy was a catholic scholar — it would be good to read his works in English sometime.

I haven’t posted in some time, but it seems that some things never change. This so-called statistic quoted from Whelton has been brought up over and over again on the Eastern Christianity forum through the years.

One important thing to note is that those who have used this argument against the papacy have failed to take into consideration is that the ECF’s often spoke of the “rock” as both Peter AND his confession. In fact, no one has yet been able to demonstrate that any Church Father ever separated Peter’s confession from Peter’s person. Therefore this distinction, far from being some kind of evidence against the papacy, is rather meaningless.

I would suggest that anyone interested do an archive search of the Eastern Christianity forum (I see it is now called Eastern Catholicism) for a more in depth discussion of the issue based on the ECF’s writings.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi

I would like to copy/paste here an argument given by our friend 1234 on another thread:

I have always thought it odd that Jesus, in conferring such an important office on Simon bar Jonah, chose a Greek name for him, Peter, and used a pun on the Greek meaning of that name, referring to Peter, as petros means ‘rock’ in Greek.

Jesus was a Jew and spoke Aramaic. I doubt if he was fluent in Greek and that he would have given Simon a Greek name, punning on its Greek meaning as he did so.

The obvious conclusion is that the passage was written long after the early Christians had given up on the Jews, were writing in Greek (all the gospels are in Greek) for their Greek converts, and Peter has assumed leadership of the early new religion. There is nothing about this passage which suggests that Jesus ever spoke it in the manner that it has survived.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3318902&postcount=36

I think he has a valid point there.

Thanks

This is a fallacious argument, sorry. I will address the language first.

The Jewish population of Galilee was mainly composed of Judeans who migrated from further south (essentially the vicinity of Jerusalem) in the last previous few generations. The entire Jewish nation had lived under Hellenic powers for several hundred years, sometimes under enforced Helenizing policies. The upper classes were fluent in Greek, and most of the rest were exposed to it constantly for generations, even if they refused to use it.

The Romans resorted to Greek constantly in the East, because it was the language understood by common people on the street wherever they went.

There were also descendants of Greek colonists residing all over the region of Galilee.

It is very, very likely Jesus at least understood Greek, most of the Jews did, and Galilee had a greatly mixed population. A rudimentary knowledge of the language would be very useful to a woodworker plying his trade.

He seems pretty clesar Jesus read from the Septuagint, at least some of the time. It is believed He quoted from it.

Anyway, all the preceeding is not as important as the fact that Jesus called Simon Bar Jona Kephas, or Cephas. That is pretty obvious, which makes the question about whether Jesus spoke Greek moot point.

Michael