Shinobu:
How would you answer this person? I don’t know how to answer this and also just don’t know whereabouts to start.
I have mostly just commented on answers up to this point, but I want to address some things said in other answers/comments. I defy any Catholic to show where in the Bible authority is established for the Catholic church and for Peter as the first Pope without using Matthew 16:15-18.
A typical Catholic reading of that passage mixes two Greek words to create a false church structure. Christ told Peter that He would establish His church on the rock of Peter’s confession of Him as Christ, not on Peter himself. Peter is “petros”, a maculine noun meaning “stone”. Jesus told “petros” (actually, since “Peter” is the direct object of that sentence, the accusative form of this masculine noun would read “petron”) that He would build his church on this “petra”, a femine noun meaning “large rock, cliff, or ledge”. The words are completely different genders in the original text. This passage does not make Peter a pope. He was, instead, an elder in a congregation of the 1st century church as a reading of the letters he wrote will show.
Even a quick reading of 1st century practices during the assembly in Acts, 1 Corinthians, etc… and of the organizational structure of the church as discussed in Timothy and Titus reveal that Catholicism is a drastic departure from this example and Biblical standard.
The Catholic church is not the original church. It is an apostate branch of the church as described in scripture that developed over time as an abandonment of congregational autonomy and the introduction of traditions that carried the weight of scripture took hold. Numerous Christian movements today are trying to return to the New Testament example of God’s church (the church of Christ where I attend is an example), and some are having more success than others as millenia old Catholic (and even Protestant) traditions and social sensitivities cloud an effort to return to pure Bible teaching.
I challenge any reader to prove through scripture alone that the Catholic church is the one church established by God. I will append this answer as necessary to respond.
The quote came from this page:
answerbag.com/a_view.php/14610
Hello Shinobu,
This destinction is not very good. The reason for the change in gender is because in the Greek society you would not name a man with a feminine name, like petra. So, Matthew changed it to the masculine form of the same word.
It is inconsequential though because Christ did not speak in Greek. It is understood by a large majority of scholars that Christ spoke in Aramaic. In the Aramaic language there is no destinction in gender between masculine and feminine. It would be Kephas and kephas in Aramaic. In fact in other places in the Greek NT they actually use this term. For example, in John 1;42 Jesus calls him kephas, and then it says "which is interpreted petros. Kepha translates as Rock. So, here we see proof that Christ spoke in Aramaic, from the bible. This name is also shown in some Galatians2 3 times, and in Corinthians 4 times in Corinth.1, Corinth.3, Corinth.5, Corinth.9, and Corinth.15. So, it is shown quite often that Christ actually spoke in Aramaic. He also uses Aramaic in Matt.27;46 where he cries from the cross.
Second, it is understood that the keys that Christ gives to Peter in Matt.16 represent authority. You can see this by looking back in Isaiah 22;15-26. It speaks of God taking the keys of the house of David and giving them to Shebna. He says that he will open and shut, and what he has opened no one shall shut. This shows the authority that is handed with the keys. You can see that Matt 16 is very similar and it shows Christ giving the keys of heaven to Peter. And he said what you shall bind shall be bound in heaven and what you shall loose shall be loosed in heaven. This authority is only given to Peter, as can be proved from the Greek if needed.
Later in chapter 18 Christ gives all the apostles the authority to bind and to loose, but he does not give them the keys to heaven, which were given to Peter alone.
You can also see that from the begining, the Church of Rome was understood to be the head of all church’s. For example, Irenaeus in the middle of the second century said that all church’s should agree with the church of Rome because of its pre-eminent authority.[Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3 Chapter 3.]
