Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church

[Randy_Carson]

LOL. Staying out of this one…

Understandable.

Eastern Orthodox Theologians Agree: Peter is the Rock

Veselin Kesich

“It has long been noticed that Mt 16:17-19 has a Palestinian, Aramaic background. The form of Jesus’ reply to Peter’s confession appears Hebraistic. There are parallels to the Matthean text in the Qumran literature. The use of semitisms such as ‘gates of Hades,’ ‘flesh and blood,’ ‘bind and loose,’ and semitic parallelism again indicates an Aramaic environment…[Jesus] conferred upon Simon Bar-Jonah the title Peter, and promised that he would build his church upon him. ‘You are Peter (Petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church (ecclesia).’ These words are spoken in Aramaic, in which Cephas stands both for petros and petra…The confession of Peter, therefore, cannot be separated from Peter himself. Petra or rock does not simply refer to Peter’s faith but also to Peter personally. There is a formal and real identity between Petros and petra. Jesus will build the church upon Cephas.” (Veselin Kesich, “Peter’s Primacy in the New Testament and the Early Tradition” in The Primacy of Peter edited by John Meyendorff [St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992], page 47,48)

Theodore Stylianopoulos

“That Orthodox scholars have gradually moved in the direction of affirming the personal application of Matt 16:17-19 to the Apostle Peter must be applauded. From the standpoint of critical scholarship it can no longer be disputed that Jesus’ words to Peter as reported in Matt 16:17-19 confer a special distinction on Peter as “rock” — the foundation on which Christ promised to build his Church. … These points are now conceded by conservative Protestant scholars as well.” (Kasper 48-49)

 

[Tomyris]

Peter’s confession of faith (v. 16:16) was inspired by the Father, and he receives the blessing of Jesus (v. 16:17). However, in v. 23, Jesus rebukes Peter because Peter’s natural instincts object to a suffering Messiah. On his own, Peter cannot see the spiritual necessity of Jesus’ passion.

Thus, in a few short verses, Peter learns what it is like to receive revelation from the Father and to be chastised for relying on his own human understanding apart from God.

This was all part of maturing as the man who would one day be responsible for leading, tending and caring for the Church built by Jesus.

Opinion and rhetoric. Circular reasoning.

 

[Tomyris]

You are misinformed.

I have two dozen quotes from Protestant scholars and Bible commentaries (some of which you may have on your shelf) that say Peter was the rock.

Need to see them? :coffeeread:

You have no idea as to what information I have at my disposal. I find your idea that I am misinformed arrogant and presumptuous.

To restate, for the purposes of this thread, we need to assume that all post-Scriptural advocacy of Peter is tainted evidence, as what we are looking at is whether the idea that Peter was in charge was Peter’s idea, not Christ’s. You seem to have missed that.

 

[Tomyris]

Understandable.

Eastern Orthodox Theologians Agree: Peter is the Rock

Veselin Kesich

“It has long been noticed that Mt 16:17-19 has a Palestinian, Aramaic background. The form of Jesus’ reply to Peter’s confession appears Hebraistic. There are parallels to the Matthean text in the Qumran literature. The use of semitisms such as ‘gates of Hades,’ ‘flesh and blood,’ ‘bind and loose,’ and semitic parallelism again indicates an Aramaic environment…[Jesus] conferred upon Simon Bar-Jonah the title Peter, and promised that he would build his church upon him. ‘You are Peter (Petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church (ecclesia).’ These words are spoken in Aramaic, in which Cephas stands both for petros and petra…The confession of Peter, therefore, cannot be separated from Peter himself. Petra or rock does not simply refer to Peter’s faith but also to Peter personally. There is a formal and real identity between Petros and petra. Jesus will build the church upon Cephas.” (Veselin Kesich, “Peter’s Primacy in the New Testament and the Early Tradition” in The Primacy of Peter edited by John Meyendorff [St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992], page 47,48)

Theodore Stylianopoulos

“That Orthodox scholars have gradually moved in the direction of affirming the personal application of Matt 16:17-19 to the Apostle Peter must be applauded. From the standpoint of critical scholarship it can no longer be disputed that Jesus’ words to Peter as reported in Matt 16:17-19 confer a special distinction on Peter as “rock” — the foundation on which Christ promised to build his Church. … These points are now conceded by conservative Protestant scholars as well.” (Kasper 48-49)

Please see my previous post. This is tainted evidence.

 

[Tomyris]

Seriously, Jesus was not saying he was Satan but that he was doing Satan’s work of being a stumbling block to Jesus’ mission.

He called him Satan.

 

[howirenic]

Randy, I don’t really like what you did there.

I made a humorous and lighthearted remark about the situation (knowing how quickly these conversations can devolve on internet forums), and you went ahead and posted your quotes anyway, as if my difficulty with them was the real reason for my silence.

We Orthodox do not refute Peter’s primacy, as you know. Please do not represent us as being in denial of that. As for whether or not the modern Papacy is of the Church that Christ founded… again, I’m staying out of that one.

 

[MichaelHowling]

Sorry…wife needed the computer.

Jesus gave him the “keys to the kingdom”. do you know what that meant back then?

 

[Tomyris]

Randy, I don’t really like what you did there.

I made a humorous and lighthearted remark about the situation (knowing how quickly these conversations can devolve on internet forums), and you went ahead and posted your quotes anyway, as if my difficulty with them was the real reason for my silence.

We Orthodox do not refute Peter’s primacy, as you know. Please do not represent us as being in denial of that. As for whether or not the modern Papacy is of the Church that Christ founded… again, I’m staying out of that one.

I think you bring up a brilliant point: what does it mean when someone says Peter is the head of the church? Are we talking primacy or modern papacy.

Mighty fine posting there, and I like your user name!

 

[adrift]

Warren Carroll also advocated that folks like me be tortured and killed by the RC denomination. I am thinking he wasn’t serious but it left a foul taste in my mouth.

Source?

Anyway, the bishops of the early church accepted that the Petrine ministry is for ALL the bishops.

That the Apostles were all equal in their ministry is not debated. However what you quote supports Peter being the leader.

Cyprian:

The Lord saith unto Peter, I say unto thee, (saith He,) that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18–19). To him again, after His resurrection, He says, Feed My sheep. Upon him being one He builds His Church; and although He gives to all the Apostles an equal power, and says, As My Father sent Me, even so I send you; receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosoever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted to him, and whosoever sins ye shall retain, they shall be retained (John 20:21);—yet in order to manifest unity,** He has by His own authority so placed the source of the same unity, as to begin from one** (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3-4, pp. 133-135).

 

[Tomyris]

Sorry…wife needed the computer.

Jesus gave him the “keys to the kingdom”. do you know what that meant back then?

Is there a connection between these two statements?

Wife:computer and Jesus: keys ?

I need to think about that one.

 

[MichaelHowling]

lol! Perfect!

See… I, being the husband am the head of the house…she DEFFINATLEY HAS THE KEYS!

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Source?

biblelight.net/burn-heretics.htm

That the Apostles were all equal in their ministry is not debated. However what you quote supports Peter being the leader.

How in the world does “equal in power and authority to” translate to “the leader of”?

 

[adrift]

He called him Satan.

He also said to cut off your hand and put out your eye . What does Jesus mean when He calls Peter Satan. Obviously he doesn’t mean the fallen angel which is one meaning but another meaning is 1) adversary (one who opposes another in purpose or act). Jesus said He was a stumbling block. However, you ignored

So when Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter it didn’t mean anything? Jesus didn’t know that Simon would betray Him or try to deter Him from His mission? The fact that Peter later was a stumbling block to Jesus does not wipe away the declaration that you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church … I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. As Jesus knew what Judas would do so He knew what Peter would do.

 

[adrift]

So it didn’t mean anything when he called him Satan?

And we can argue (yes we can!) whether Peter or faith or Christ was the rock. If it was Peter’s idea that he was in charge, not Christ’s, then he was not the rock, definitely not.

It is your interpretation that is the trouble. It has been said to you that Peter was NOT being chastised for taking charge BUT for being a stumbling block to Jesus. You really have to squint hard to see Peter trying to be in charge.

You have forgotten the “feed my sheep”

 

[MichaelHowling]

K, I think I’m gonna move on.

lastly, I urge anyone who is looking for the authority and primacy of Peter to listen to this free audio:

catholicscomehome.org/not-being-fed/

It’s AMAZING!!! It’s actually done by a former protestant minister who became catholic because he was enlightened to the idea of peter having the keys…the authority …and therefore is able to keep God’s people safe and fed due to his special anointing.

God bless everyone!

 

[Jon_S_1]

Warren Carroll also advocated that folks like me be tortured and killed by the RC denomination. I am thinking he wasn’t serious but it left a foul taste in my mouth.

Anyway, the bishops of the early church accepted that the Petrine ministry is for ALL the bishops.

Cyprian:

The Lord saith unto Peter, I say unto thee, (saith He,) that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18–19). To him again, after His resurrection, He says, Feed My sheep. Upon him being one He builds His Church; and although He gives to all the Apostles an equal power, and says, As My Father sent Me, even so I send you; receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosoever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted to him, and whosoever sins ye shall retain, they shall be retained (John 20:21);— yet in order to manifest unity, He has by His own authority so placed the source of the same unity, as to begin from one A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3-4, pp. 133-135).

**Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; **but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her (Cant. 9:6) (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133).

See my underline above. Did you miss that part? The Catholic Church teaches that all the Bishops have and share authority. They are united with Zpeter who is the prince of the apostles. A leader and organizer and debate settler when needed.

These quotes, besides the fact that you missed the point of them, teach too much. You as a son of the reformation deny the authority of ANY of the bishops. You trade it for congregating around a like minded speaker.

 

[onenow1]

Well, verse 23 follows pretty quickly, does it not? That’s where Jesus called him Satan. Right after Peter does something that sounds authoritative. Sounds to me like Peter was being presumptuous and got strongly rebuked for thinking he was in charge.

Yup ! Jesus said get behind me Satan, and in the garden of Gethsemane all the Apostles ran except Peter he followed behind. However he and the rest of the Apostles certainly understood at Pentecost when Peter took the lead .

God Bless
onenow1

 

[adrift]

biblelight.net/burn-heretics.htm

Warren Carroll also advocated

Didn’t you read your own source?

In a recent post I tried to clarify my position on this issue. I certainly do not advocate the restoration of the burning of heretics, because in the present climate of opinion it would hurt the Church, and I do not think it should have been done in the past, because we should not deliberately inflict such great pain, nor deprive the heretic of the opportunity to repent. But I do understand why it was done in the past, for the reasons that several posters have stated. Billy Graham would have been seen as a heretic in the past, and he is in fact a heretic now, though he does love Christ and has done much good. - Dr. Carroll

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Didn’t you read your own source?

Only because it would be a smudge on the denomination’s public face.

 

[boomerang]

He called him Satan.

Satan means “adversary”. Jesus called Peter “adversary” because of Peter’s opposition to the notion that Jesus had to die. Jesus forgave him for that, just like He forgave him for denying Him. And then He put him in charge of the church. Simple.