help please

[coolduude]

@cooldude, I see no reason to take this private, so that others can read and contribute as they wish, and who knows, maybe it will help out other people

Makes sense

Here’s my back up to the claim the Peter is Pope (using Mt. 16:18):

CLAIM: Peter means “small stone”, not “large rock”, like Catholics claim.
ANSWER:
Catholic Answers:

Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while “rock” is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra?

Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, “You will be called Cephas”). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: “You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church.”

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of “small stone” and “large rock” in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).

CLAIM: Christ is the rock, not Peter.
ANSWER:
Catholic Answers:

If we examine the text grammatically—“You are Peter, and on this rock”—“this rock” must refer to the closest noun. To say “this rock” refers to Jesus, or to Peter’s declaration of faith, is to completely ignore the structure of the sentence.

As an analogy, consider this sentence: “I have a car and a truck, and it is blue.” Which is blue? The truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun it. This would be even clearer if the reference to the car were two sentences earlier, as Peter’s profession is two sentences earlier than the word rock.

If Jesus wanted to distinguish between rocks, he could have said: “You are Peter, but upon this rock I will build my Church.” “This rock” would then have clearly referred to something other than Peter.

CLAIM: Matthew’s Gospel was not written in Aramaic
ANSWER:
Catholic Answers:

There is good evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic. Both Papias and Irenaeus told us that in the second century. More importantly, and more certainly, Jesus would have spoken his discourse of Matthew 16 in Aramaic, not Greek. Although Greek was the dominant language of the Roman Empire in the first century, most of the Jewish people Jesus spoke to were not fluent in it. They spoke Aramaic.

There is also biblical evidence, in John 1:42, that Jesus used Aramaic in the naming of Peter:

[Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter).

The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic name Kepha, which simply means “rock.” There was no “small rock” to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter. Even well-respected Protestant scholars agree on this point. Baptist scholar D. A. Carson writes:

The underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; at most probably kepha was used in both clauses ("you are kepha" and "on this kepha"), since the word was used both for a name and for a "rock." The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8, Zondervan, 368)

 

[coolduude]

CLAIM: Even if Peter was the first Pope, there doesn’t need to be more than 1
ANSWER:

What is meant by the term Apostolic Succession?

Church of Christ, must be able to trace her doctrine, her orders, all her mission, to the Apostles of Christ and so ultimately, by Apostolic Succession we mean that Lawful Succession of the hierarchy from the Apostles by means of the Orders validly received while simultaneously having transmitted the same faith of the Apostles .

And so in its concrete form, apostolic succession is the unbroken line of bishops stretching back to the apostles, who held communion with Rome.

**Necessity for Apostolicity:

Does the Church have to be Apostolic?
**
The reason is that during all the time that the Church shall exist, there must have true pastors - “For the work of the ministry, for the edification of the body of Christ,”—Ephes. chap. iv.

And yet it’s not enough for there simply to be priests, but these these watchmen/priests must be lawfully sent. St. Paul who in speaking of the missionaries for the faith and the God’s great blessing of God upon such men, nevertheless does not fail to affirm (Romans 10) “How shall they preach unless they be sent?” But even prior to this we read in the Old Testament that of such self appointed missionaries God Himself complains by the mouth of Jeremiah saying,—Jer, xxiii, 21:—“I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied .”

St. Paul doesn’t limit the importance of having a lawful mission from the Church merely to preaching but also to the very reception of Holy Order itself, that is why in his letter to the Hebrews he expressly states that “no man takes the honor of the priesthood upon himself, but he that is called by God as Aaron was,”—Heb. v, 4.

And so it seems clear from scripture at least that the succession of pastors must be one that is lawfully authorized. For this reason the Church has always continued along this path, by the power that Christ had originally given to His apostles in the words: “As my Father has send me, I also send you” (Matt 28).

It was by means of this Apostolic Succession that Christ intended His Church to endure until the end of world with the 4 marks with which he founded it. In other words it is by this Apostolic Succession that we are to know the true Church from all the counterfeit claimant churches of today because the true Church must derive, by a perpetual and uninterrupted succession from the Apostles, her doctrines, her mission, and her orders.

The apostolicity of succession guarantees the unfalsified transmission of doctrine and makes manifest the organic connection between the Church today and the Church of the Apostles. If a church cannot trace its history back in an unbroken line, step by step, from the present to the Apostles, it is not the true Church.

Any other questions, bibleguy?

 

[Milesius]

But we see that prior to this Jesus says “flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but the Father who is in heaven.” We see that it is not Peter but God that made the statement, so again I will claim that Jesus was referring to the confession that He is Lord. I will again bring up that Peter’s faith was certainly not a rock.
Oh, and @cooldude, I see no reason to take this private, so that others can read and contribute as they wish, and who knows, maybe it will help out other people

Read the rest written at the link.

home.inreach.com/bstanley/prim.htm

 

[bibleguy180]

Alright, I have yet to find a Greek historian or someone with authority on the matter say that petros and petra are synonyms, but for the sake of the argument, I will accept that. Now, just because the distinction has disappeared, does not mean petros must always mean “immovable rock”. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have had a word for “small stone”. And no, the name Petros is an actual Greek word, not just the masculine form for a name. So, since they both meant “immovable rock”, why would Peter use petra? It’s like saying “I am gay today”. The word “gay” meaning happy, has virtually disappeared and much more often means homosexual. But certainly I did not mean I am homosexual for the day

Oh, and “this” does not have to refer to Peter if it is referring to something outside the sentence (I.E. the confession Christ is Lord)

 

[coolduude]

Alright, I have yet to find a Greek historian or someone with authority on the matter say that petros and petra are synonyms, but for the sake of the argument, I will accept that.

bibleguy180:

Now, just because the distinction has disappeared, does not mean petros must always mean “immovable rock”. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have had a word for “small stone”. And no, the name Petros is an actual Greek word, not just the masculine form for a name. So, since they both meant “immovable rock”, why would Peter use petra? It’s like saying “I am gay today”. The word “gay” meaning happy, has virtually disappeared and much more often means homosexual. But certainly I did not mean I am homosexual for the day

Why would Peter use petra? Do you mean Matthew in his Gospel?

bibleguy180:

Oh, and “this” does not have to refer to Peter if it is referring to something outside the sentence (I.E. the confession Christ is Lord)

Yes it does. The only two people in the conversation were Jesus and Peter. And how would it make sense if Jesus said “On this [confession of faith] I will build my Church”? How can you build a Church on a confession of faith? It would make much more sense to build your Church on a person, don’t you think?

This reminds me of Ockham’s Razor:
Wikipedia:

Occam’s razor (or Ockham’s razor) is the principle that “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity” (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem). The popular interpretation of this principle is that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. However, this is often confused, as the ‘simple’ “is really referring to the theory with the fewest new assumptions.”

This applies here as well

 

[bibleguy180]

Why would Peter use petra? Do you mean Matthew in his Gospel?

Yes it does. The only two people in the conversation were Jesus and Peter. And how would it make sense if Jesus said “On this [confession of faith] I will build my Church”? How can you build a Church on a confession of faith? It would make much more sense to build your Church on a person, don’t you think?

This reminds me of Ockham’s Razor:

This applies here as well

Yeah, I meant Matthew oops
I don’t think it makes much sense to build a Church on a fallible human instead of an inerrant confession such as Jesus is Lord. I fail to see how Ockham’s Razor applies, I’m also not a big fan of it at all to be honest.

 

[coolduude]

Yeah, I meant Matthew oops
I don’t think it makes much sense to build a Church on a fallible human instead of an inerrant confession such as Jesus is Lord. I fail to see how Ockham’s Razor applies, I’m also not a big fan of it at all to be honest.

So why did Matthew use petra the second time? (I’m guessing that’s the objection)

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

Basically, he could use ‘petra’ the second time because it wasn’t referring to, or taking the place of, a masculine noun. It was on it’s own, so it could be feminine. It’s like Spanish

How could the confession “You are Lord” be inerrant? There are many people who have said that, only to turn their back on Christianity. And all people get tempted. Jesus even told Peter off! (c.f., Mt. 16:23). Don’t forget, the Pope isn’t perfect either. We believe that he won’t make a mistake in faith or morals. But otherwise, he could screw up as bad (or worse!) than the rest of us

Ockham’s Razor applies because it basically says “accept the simplest explanation for things”. So don’t try to think of alternate explanations for things, when the right one (and simplest) is right in front of you. It’s like the moon hoaxers. They try EVERYTHING to get people to think we never went to the moon, but the simplest explanation is the truth- we went! See what I mean? Hope this makes sense

 

[duffyk4]

I feel this argument is going in circles.

 

[coolduude]

I feel this argument is going in circles.

Just wait

 

[bibleguy180]

So why did Matthew use petra the second time? (I’m guessing that’s the objection)

Basically, he could use ‘petra’ the second time because it wasn’t referring to, or taking the place of, a masculine noun. It was on it’s own, so it could be feminine. It’s like Spanish

How could the confession “You are Lord” be inerrant? There are many people who have said that, only to turn their back on Christianity. And all people get tempted. Jesus even told Peter off! (c.f., Mt. 16:23). Don’t forget, the Pope isn’t perfect either. We believe that he won’t make a mistake in faith or morals. But otherwise, he could screw up as bad (or worse!) than the rest of us

Ockham’s Razor applies because it basically says “accept the simplest explanation for things”. So don’t try to think of alternate explanations for things, when the right one (and simplest) is right in front of you. It’s like the moon hoaxers. They try EVERYTHING to get people to think we never went to the moon, but the simplest explanation is the truth- we went! See what I mean? Hope this makes sense

I dont speak Spanish and even if people turn their back on the Jesus, the statement Jesus is Lord is still true, just like we went to the moon is an inerrant statement, no matter much these people don’t believe it, it is simply the truth. As for your simplest solution argument, I’m sure it was understood quite well in the early Church, especially while the apostles were still alive. The point is Peter’s faith was NOT an immovable rock, so you couldn’t build a Church upon it. Jesus is saying, good job, but don’t get cocky. You are still just a man, and God has revealed this to you, not to your own credit.

 

[coolduude]

I dont speak Spanish and even if people turn their back on the Jesus, the statement Jesus is Lord is still true, just like we went to the moon is an inerrant statement, no matter much these people don’t believe it, it is simply the truth. As for your simplest solution argument, I’m sure it was understood quite well in the early Church, especially while the apostles were still alive. The point is Peter’s faith was NOT an immovable rock, so you couldn’t build a Church upon it. Jesus is saying, good job, but don’t get cocky. You are still just a man, and God has revealed this to you, not to your own credit.

I think now we are making progress

It was certainly understood in the early Church that Peter was the first Pope and a Church was built upon it:
Church Fathers:

Because Peter was made the foundation of the Church, there were practical implications: it gave him a special place or primacy among the apostles. As the passages below demonstrate, the early Church Fathers clearly recognized this.

Clement of Alexandria

“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian

“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

The Letter of Clement to James

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

Origen

“*f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

“The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly” (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).

“[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]” (ibid., 6:14).

“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32–34]” (ibid., 17:27). **

So here’s a check up.

Do you accept that Jesus was referring to Peter in Matthew 16:18? If not, what was He referring to?

Reminder: watch that video with sound this time

 

[bibleguy180]

Alright, I’ll accept that. Thanks

 

[coolduude]

Alright, I’ll accept that. Thanks

Progress? You accept that Peter was the Rock in Matthew 16:18?

Progress, my friend!

 

[SamDC]

Yeah, I meant Matthew oops
I don’t think it makes much sense to build a Church on a fallible human instead of an inerrant confession such as Jesus is Lord. I fail to see how Ockham’s Razor applies, I’m also not a big fan of it at all to be honest.

90% of Protestant scholars will not agree with your position about these verses. Luther himself would not agree with your stand. Here is a quote by Luther years after he left the church:“Why are you searching heavenward in search of my keys? Do you not understand, Jesus said, ‘I gave them to Peter. They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven for I left them on earth.’” This is Jesus talking, “'Peter’s mouth is my mouth, his tongue is my key case, his keys are my keys. They are an office.”…Very few will argue that Peter is NOT the rock

If you read the complete verse in Matt 16, Jesus is also giving the keys of HIS kingdom to Peter and he says whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven.

Now turn to Isiah 22:20 and see what is written there
20“In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

The key to the house of David has been handed to Eliakim and what he opens no one can shut and what he shuts none can open…And if you read about it, the keys to the kingdom in the old testament is held by the number 2 person namely the Prime minister of the kingdom…What Jesus is saying in Matt 16 is a direct reference to Isiah 22:20…The key is a symbol of authority that was not handed to all the apostles but only to Peter.

I don’t think it makes much sense to build a Church on a fallible human instead of an inerrant confession such as Jesus is Lord.

What you need to know is the bible itself was written and canonized by fallible humans…When you believe that God exercised HIS authority to write the bible and put it together using fallible humans, why is it difficult for you to believe that God wouldnt use his authority through Peter and his successors to build HIS church?? You need to realize that the bible as we know it today came from the church…It wasnt the other way round.

 

[onmyknees]

Remember SamDC and bibleguy that in compiling the bible and in all teachings on faith and morals, the pope and the apostles (like the the pope and the magisterium today) were/are being guided by the Holy Spirit as Jesus told them he would.

John 16 12

“I have yet many things to say to you but they would be too much for you now. But when the Spirit of Truth comes He will lead you to the complete truth.”

Also keep in mind that Jesus’ audience was Peter and all the apostles.

 

[Church_Militant]

I would suggest that you reconsider and change your mind.

I once thought as you do today. My Testimony

You will regret it later on.

 

[SamDC]

Remember SamDC and bibleguy that in compiling the bible and in all teachings on faith and morals, the pope and the apostles (like the the pope and the magisterium today) were/are being guided by the Holy Spirit as Jesus told them he would.

John 16 12

“I have yet many things to say to you but they would be too much for you now. But when the Spirit of Truth comes He will lead you to the complete truth.”

Also keep in mind that Jesus’ audience was Peter and all the apostles.

I didnt understand why you directed your post addressed to me…Did you read my post? I was giving the bibleguy biblical reference on papacy and that it is not human authority but God’s authority that HE exercises through Peter and his successors. And that the bible itself was put together by humans who were guided by the holy spirit. If you did, you would realize that I would say Amen to what you just said…But I didnt really get whether you are trying to address bibleguy’s concern or make a point to me??

 

[bibleguy180]

\

You will regret it later on.

No, my friend, you are wrong about that. I’ve been closer to God than ever

 

[SamDC]

Remember SamDC and bibleguy that in compiling the bible and in all teachings on faith and morals, the pope and the apostles (like the the pope and the magisterium today) were/are being guided by the Holy Spirit as Jesus told them he would.

John 16 12

“I have yet many things to say to you but they would be too much for you now. But when the Spirit of Truth comes He will lead you to the complete truth.”

Also keep in mind that Jesus’ audience was Peter and all the apostles.

I think my quote was not very clear…Didnt mean to confuse anyone out here. So let me clarify the point that I was trying to make:
Bibleguy said that he believes that the bible alone is the sole authority…If thats true then Id say you still believe that God exercised his authority through human beings(who were sinners too) to write it and canonize it…When you can believe that God can exercise HIS authority to write an infallible book through humans(who would otherwise be fallible) and preserve it through the years, why is it difficult to digest that God cant appoint a human being to teach his book? Note that enough scriptural evidence has been posted to support the Catholic view…The bible as we know it today was canonized and preserved by the church by Gods authority…the bible is not the mother of the church.

 

[coolduude]

No, my friend, you are wrong about that. I’ve been closer to God than ever

No offense intended, but that feeling is very subject to change, as feelings often do.

So now that you have accepted that Peter was the Rock in Matthew 16:18, what further objections do you have about the Papacy?