How can you believe that the Church was founded upon Peter?

[Brian_Ingram]

askeptic:

But were they quoting the Gospels or Paul’s letters? Can you provide evidence of those people quoting the Gospels or Acts?

From the Catholic Encylopedia

The Epistles of St. Ignatius (martyred 110-17) contain no literal quotation from the Holy Books; nevertheless, St. Ignatius borrowed expressions and some sentences from Matthew (“Ad Polyc.”, 2:2 = Matthew 10:16; “Ephesians”, 14:2 = Matthew 12:33, etc.). In his “Epistle to the Philadelphians” (v, 12), he speaks of the Gospel in which he takes refuge as in the Flesh of Jesus; consequently, he had an evangelical collection which he regarded as Sacred Writ, and we cannot doubt that the Gospel of St. Matthew formed part of it.
In the Epistle of Polycarp (110-17), we find various passages from St. Matthew quoted literally (12:3 = Matthew 5:44; 7:2 = Matthew 26:41, etc.).
The Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles (Didache) contains sixty-six passages that recall the Gospel of Matthew; some of them are literal quotations (8:2 = Matthew 6:7-13; 7:1 = Matthew 28:19; 11:7 = Matthew 12:31, etc.).
In the so-called Epistle of Barnabas (117-30), we find a passage from St. Matthew (xxii, 14), introduced by the scriptural formula, os gegraptai, which proves that the author considered the Gospel of Matthew equal in point of authority to the writings of the Old Testament.
Pax

Brian

 

[askeptic]

Brian Ingram:

From the Catholic Encylopedia

The Epistles of St. Ignatius (martyred 110-17) contain no literal quotation from the Holy Books; nevertheless, St. Ignatius borrowed expressions and some sentences from Matthew (“Ad Polyc.”, 2:2 = Matthew 10:16; “Ephesians”, 14:2 = Matthew 12:33, etc.). In his “Epistle to the Philadelphians” (v, 12), he speaks of the Gospel in which he takes refuge as in the Flesh of Jesus; consequently, he had an evangelical collection which he regarded as Sacred Writ, and we cannot doubt that the Gospel of St. Matthew formed part of it.
In the Epistle of Polycarp (110-17), we find various passages from St. Matthew quoted literally (12:3 = Matthew 5:44; 7:2 = Matthew 26:41, etc.).
The Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles (Didache) contains sixty-six passages that recall the Gospel of Matthew; some of them are literal quotations (8:2 = Matthew 6:7-13; 7:1 = Matthew 28:19; 11:7 = Matthew 12:31, etc.).
In the so-called Epistle of Barnabas (117-30), we find a passage from St. Matthew (xxii, 14), introduced by the scriptural formula, os gegraptai, which proves that the author considered the Gospel of Matthew equal in point of authority to the writings of the Old Testament.
Pax

Brian

Given that this seems to contradict what I posted from the other scholar, the only way to know the truth is to go back to the writings of these people and see what they said.

 

[Atreyu]

askeptic, I think that your arguments that “silence is telling” and so forth aren’t really very good, as imo your preconception as to the reason why the gospels were written, is incorrect. Imo, the gospels were written to document and teach the teachings of Jesus. What is the most important thing in the gospels? Imo it is the parables, and maybe other events such as the Sermon on the Mount. Is the establishment of the papacy as important as the teachings of Jesus? No way! Is the virgin birth as important as the teachings of Jesus? Again, no way! What about the death and resurrection of Jesus? This is definitely very important, as it shows that Jesus is God. But still, it is not important as the teachings of Jesus, in my opinion.

Yes I know that arguments that contain one let alone several “imo” aren’t very reliable, but I’m just trying to demonstrate that maybe the authors of the gospels had a different agenda to what you suppose they do. I hope this makes sense…

 

[Roady]

imroc:

Where in scripture does it say this?

Imroc…hello to you. I will present this evidence and apologize ahead if any of you have heard it a million times or so.

Jesus uses the same word in Matthew 16:18 to describe Himself as he does in 1 Co. 10:4.

Mt. 15:18 “That thou art Peter[petros] and upon this rock [petra] I will build my church…”

1 Cor. 10:4 “…for they drank of that spiritual Rock [Petra] that followed them, and that Rock [Petra] was Christ.”

Roady

 

[Brian_Ingram]

Roady:

Imroc…hello to you. I will present this evidence and apologize ahead if any of you have heard it a million times or so.

Jesus uses the same word in Matthew 16:18 to describe Himself as he does in 1 Co. 10:4.

Mt. 15:18 “That thou art Peter[petros] and upon this rock [petra] I will build my church…”

1 Cor. 10:4 “…for they drank of that spiritual Rock [Petra] that followed them, and that Rock [Petra] was Christ.”

Roady

Many Protestant scholars today concede the fact that Jesus was referring to Peter when saying, “Upon this rock I will build my church.”
Protestant Greek scholar Marvin Vincent wrote,

The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter’s confession, but to Peter himself, . . . The reference of petra to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: “On this rock will I build.” Again, Christ is the great foundation, the chief cornerstone, but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ’s church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Peter 2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and in ver. 5, addresses the church as living stones.[6]

Protestant scholar W.F. Albright wrote,

This is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times. . . . Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose. In view of the background of vs. 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence (cp. Gal 2:11 ff.).[7]

David Hill, a Presbyterian minister at the University of Sheffield wrote,
It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. . . . Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g. his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.[8]

For more Protestant scholars affirmation that Peter is the rock
see users.stargate.net/~elcore/kephas.htm

The early Christians also fully understood that this was Jesus’s meaning. Let us not forget that these are the people who were closest to Jesus in time, language, and culture. They are the ones most likely to have understood Him correctly. This is what some of them wrote:

Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called “the rock on which the Church would be built” with the power of “loosing and binding in heaven and on earth”? (Tertullian, Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

[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” . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? “Upon you,” he says, “I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys.” (Tertullian, Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering. (Cyprian of Carthage, Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

[Jesus said,] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter *, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. (Ephraim the Syrian, Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

It is clear that the early Christians believed that Peter was the Rock upon which Jesus built His Church, just as the Catholic Church has always claimed. And although the Reformers denied it, their descendents agree: Peter is the rock.

Pax

Brian*

 

[El_Catolico]

Matthew 16:17-9 is full of Aramaicisms that Jesus would have used in his everyday language:

“Blessed are you”

“Simon Bar-Jonah”

“Flesh and Blood”

“Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven”

“Gates of Hell”

Even though it isn’t recorded in the other two synoptic Gospels, the chances are overwhelming that this was an utterance of Christ himself.

 

[El_Catolico]

There is another important fact that you have forgotten, skeptic. Simon was named Peter, which means rock. This name was given to him by Christ, as all the other Gospels record. However, none of the Gospels give us the reason or circumstances ,why he was named rock, except for Matthew. The explanation given in Matthew 16 is fairly consistent with all the other details we know about Peter’s role in the early church.

The other writers of the Gospel may have not needed to write about the incident when Peter was named Rock, the circumstances associated with it, and the authority delegated to him there. His name already said it all.

 

[mercygate]

Aquarius:

When was the first non-Latin bible published after 1000AD?

Why after 1000? In England, Bede translated portions of Scripture, including the Gospel of John into Anglo Saxon in the 8th Century. King Alfred the Great had the Pentateuch and the Psalter (? I think) translated into the vernacular. The Lindisfarne Gospels were translated intio Old English in the 10th Century – the first full translation of the Gospels in English.

Keep in mind that in those days, the only people who could read at all could read Latin. Moreover, the history of heresy in the Church had frequently been linked to interpretations of Scripture which deviated from the Apostolic deposit of faith.

But this should all be on another thread, except that one of “Peter’s” jobs is to “feed my sheep.” That means feeding them with good food; not with food corrupted by heresy as many mediaeval bible translations were. Take the Wycliffe translation. :bigyikes: . Even Protestants are embarrassed by that one.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Aquarius:

When was the first non-Latin bible published after 1000AD?

Translating the Bible as a whole was a huge undertaking – most commonly the Gospels and Psalms were translated – and there are Irish translations dating to around 800.

English (as we know it) emerged as a fusion of Norman French and Anglo-Saxon germanic. It couldn’t exist before the Norman Conquest (1066) and took around 250 years to emerge.

It is no coincidence that the first literature in English (Canterbury Tales) was published in the 1300s. Chaucer’s generation was the first that actually spoke this new language.

And the Bible was translated into English by Wycliffe (not very well) in Chaucer’s lifetime.

 

[askeptic]

Atreyu:

askeptic, I think that your arguments that “silence is telling” and so forth aren’t really very good, as imo your preconception as to the reason why the gospels were written, is incorrect. Imo, the gospels were written to document and teach the teachings of Jesus. What is the most important thing in the gospels? Imo it is the parables, and maybe other events such as the Sermon on the Mount. Is the establishment of the papacy as important as the teachings of Jesus? No way! Is the virgin birth as important as the teachings of Jesus? Again, no way! What about the death and resurrection of Jesus? This is definitely very important, as it shows that Jesus is God. But still, it is not important as the teachings of Jesus, in my opinion.

Yes I know that arguments that contain one let alone several “imo” aren’t very reliable, but I’m just trying to demonstrate that maybe the authors of the gospels had a different agenda to what you suppose they do. I hope this makes sense…

I understand what you’re saying, but even if you are right it still doesn’t make sense to leave out the beginning of the Church.

Why? Because Jesus commented on only a few matters, and supposedly established a Church to be an infallible interpreter and explainer and definer and whatever else of his teachings. In fact he gave the Church the power to “bind and loose” etc.

If the Gospels wanted to convey Jesus’ teachings, it would have been very important to mention the Church he supposedly established, because according to Catholicism the way to know Jesus’ teachings is to listen to the Church’s interpreation of them.

The virgin birth and the whole idea of Mary being the queen of heaven, having been assumed into heaven etc. are also important things to mention, because it seems that honoring Mary is a big part of Catholicism. Plus, telling the folk that Jesus’ origin was divine would have increased his credibility, especially in the eyes of skeptics and Jews who didn’t believe he was the messiah.

 

[askeptic]

El Católico:

There is another important fact that you have forgotten, skeptic. Simon was named Peter, which means rock. This name was given to him by Christ, as all the other Gospels record. However, none of the Gospels give us the reason or circumstances ,why he was named rock, except for Matthew. The explanation given in Matthew 16 is fairly consistent with all the other details we know about Peter’s role in the early church.

The other writers of the Gospel may have not needed to write about the incident when Peter was named Rock, the circumstances associated with it, and the authority delegated to him there. His name already said it all.

But isn’t Peter “petros” or whatever, a GREEK word for rock? Jesus and the disciples certainly didn’t speak Greek, they spoke Aramaic.

Is there evidence that Jesus named Simon “rock” in Aramaic?

 

[vern_humphrey]

askeptic:

But isn’t Peter “petros” or whatever, a GREEK word for rock? Jesus and the disciples certainly didn’t speak Greek, they spoke Aramaic.

Is there evidence that Jesus named Simon “rock” in Aramaic?

Yes. In fact one good piece of evidence is the often quoted phrase of Paul’s, “I defied Cephas to his face.” Cephas is Aramaic for “rock” and Paul’s statement shows that Peter was commonly known as Cephas.

 

[FCEGM]

askeptic:

But isn’t Peter “petros” or whatever, a GREEK word for rock? Jesus and the disciples certainly didn’t speak Greek, they spoke Aramaic.

Is there evidence that Jesus named Simon “rock” in Aramaic?

Just to add a bit to Vern’s post above, you are missing the Jewish pun St. Paul employs in referring to Peter. Read all of chapters one and two of Galatians; St. Paul does something rather strange, he switches between the names “Peter” and “Kephas”. Why? Why use both versions of Peter’s name? The name “Kephas” (or “Cephas”) is clearly the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic name “Kepha” (“Rock) – the name which Jesus actually used for St. Peter. However, in Greek “Kephas” means something all on its own. In Greek, “Kephas” means “Head”. And so, when St. Paul boasts of rebuking “Kephas” he is saying how he even stood up to “the Head” (of the Church) for the sake of the Gospel. This meaning would not be lost on Paul’s Greek-speaking audience. Look at the alternation between “Peter” and “Kephas”; whenever St. Paul refers to St. Peter’s position of leadership, it’s “Kephas” (Gal. 1:18, 2:9, 2:11, 2:14), yet when he refers to St. Peter’s position as a fellow Apostle, he uses the name “Peter” (Gal. 2:7-8). St. Paul’s meaning is strikingly clear.

 

[askeptic]

FCEGM:

Just to add a bit to Vern’s post above, you are missing the Jewish pun St. Paul employs in referring to Peter. Read all of chapters one and two of Galatians; St. Paul does something rather strange, he switches between the names “Peter” and “Kephas”. Why? Why use both versions of Peter’s name? The name “Kephas” (or “Cephas”) is clearly the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic name “Kepha” (“Rock) – the name which Jesus actually used for St. Peter. However, in Greek “Kephas” means something all on its own. In Greek, “Kephas” means “Head”. And so, when St. Paul boasts of rebuking “Kephas” he is saying how he even stood up to “the Head” (of the Church) for the sake of the Gospel. This meaning would not be lost on Paul’s Greek-speaking audience. Look at the alternation between “Peter” and “Kephas”; whenever St. Paul refers to St. Peter’s position of leadership, it’s “Kephas” (Gal. 1:18, 2:9, 2:11, 2:14), yet when he refers to St. Peter’s position as a fellow Apostle, he uses the name “Peter” (Gal. 2:7-8). St. Paul’s meaning is strikingly clear.

Then again, it is possible that Peter and Kephas are different people in that passage. It seems so because Paul first talkes of Peter being in charge of the gospel to the Jews and then mentiones Kephas and two others as “pillars.”

Nowhere in Paul’s letters does he mention that a Church was established by Jesus upon Peter or Kephas, and that he has authority over the other apostles. In fact he says that he is the authority for the gentiles and Peter is the authority for the Jews, and suggests that they are equal.

Peter may very well have been an important Christian leader, but nothing Paul says suggests that his leadership was divinely ordained or that Peter had the keys to the kindgom and the power to bind/loose.

 

[mlchance]

askeptic:

Then again, it is possible that Peter and Kephas are different people in that passage.

No, it isn’t possible. You have absolutely no evidence to support any of your wild assertions.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Thal59]

In answering the title question…

"How can you believe that the Church was founded upon Peter?"

The Lord said to Simon that thou art Rock and upon this Rock I will build my church.

The lineage of the successors to the seat of Peter as Bishop of Rome is intact. To the best of my knowledge, no other apostle has such a line of succession from their original seat intact.

Currently, there are over 1.2 Billion who follow the guidance of the Bishop of Rome.

In other words, I have biblical quotes from the mouth of Jesus, a lineage of apostolic succession that has survived for almost 2,000 years, and the reality of the efficacy of that see in Rome attested to by the sheer magnitude of its flock.

Anyone who wishes to argue against this is arguing against visible reality with nothing more than unsubstatiated personal opinion.

The real question should be…

"How can you NOT believe that the Church was founded upon Peter?"

Thal59

 

[askeptic]

No, it isn’t possible. You have absolutely no evidence to support any of your wild assertions.

– Mark L. Chance.
[/quote]

The passage is the evidence. Reading it on its own does not suggest that Peter and Kephas are the same people. Paul first mentions Peter, the apostle to the Jews, and then 3 pillars of the Church, among them Kephas.

If of course you are Catholic and have been taught to believe they are, then you might read it that way.

 

[Aquarius]

This thread does make one wonder why three gospels omitted the information about founding the Church. Has anyone explored the idea that none of the gospels said that, but it was inserted in later years to support the Church’s position?

 

[El_Catolico]

Originally Posted by El Católico
*There is another important fact that you have forgotten, skeptic. Simon was named Peter, which means rock. This name was given to him by Christ, as all the other Gospels record. However, none of the Gospels give us the reason or circumstances ,why he was named rock, except for Matthew. The explanation given in Matthew 16 is fairly consistent with all the other details we know about Peter’s role in the early church.

The other writers of the Gospel may have not needed to write about the incident when Peter was named Rock, the circumstances associated with it, and the authority delegated to him there. His name already said it all.*

But isn’t Peter “petros” or whatever, a GREEK word for rock? Jesus and the disciples certainly didn’t speak Greek, they spoke Aramaic.

Is there evidence that Jesus named Simon “rock” in Aramaic?

1. Petros is indeed a Greek word for rock. The writer of the Gospel of Matthew as we have it today apparently decided to translate Kepha into the Greek word that was used at the time to designate Peter.
2. There is abundant evidence (apart from Matthew’s Gospel) that Jesus named Peter the Rock. John explicitly tells us that Jesus changed Jesus’s name from Simon to Peter (John 1:42). Peter is called either Cephas or Petros throughout the entire New Testament.

 

[El_Catolico]

Askeptic, what would you lose if your arguments are wrong here? What are you afraid of? Is it the thought that such a colossal, towering, and ancient institution like the Papacy really was founded by Jesus Christ?

Indeed, that is a terrible thought.