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

[Thal59]

askeptic:

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.

This would be easy to rectify. Please give me the name of anyone else that the Lord called Kepha (Rock.) What you are missing is a basic understanding of first century Jewish expression. Please look at Luke 22:31-34. It starts with the Lord saying… Simon, Simon. In verse 33, Simon proclaims he is willing to go to prison and death for Jesus. All of a sudden, in verse 34, Jesus says… “I tell thee, Peter…”

Is the Lord speaking to two different people?

In the passage you are talking about, the name Peter is used to identify him as a person or as an apostle. The name Kephas is used in relation to the 3 pillars of the church, to identify him as the “Rock” Christ has made him upon which His church is being built.

“Peter” as his person, “Kepha” as his role, but the same person.

Thal59

 

[El_Catolico]

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.

I am sorry, but this idea is just silly. You will not find one single Biblical scholar who accepts this view.

 

[Thal59]

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?

Such a claim is constantly being made against the church. But if this is the case, why not make up verses that “explicitly” support the church?

“And I say to thee that thou art Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church, and it will be called Catholic, and all will be obedient to your successors who will be called Pope.”

You have to remember that the oldest gospels in existence date back only to the 3rd and 4th centuries. If you are willing to believe that these texts have been corrupted by the church, then you have no basis for believing **anything **in the bible is true.

You might as well just put your faith into the Lord’s promises that the Holy Spirit would recall to your minds all that I have taught you, teach you all things, guide you into all truth, and be with you forever.

Thal59

 

[askeptic]

El Católico:

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.

If it was then I wonder what God was doint during the Inquisition and other grave insjustices of the Catholic Church. I wonder why the Church never fought for the rights of women (or for that matter why Christ himself didn’t condemn slavery and sexism). If the papacy was founded by God then the Old Testament is actually the word of God, and I would wonder what kind of a God would flood everyone (including innocent children), would send plagues onto the Egyption population, would fail to condemn polygamy and slavery even though it was practiced by the Jews, would again fail to protect women from injustices, and would order stonings for offenses such as breaking the sabbath or cursing your parents.

Above all I would wonder why the best of Jesus’ teachings (love your neighbor, forgive etc.) were independently invented by other human beings (Buddhism, Confucianism - possibly spelled this wrong).

I would wonder why the Word of God doesn’t read like the Word of God, and why modern society has been able to devise a more just social structure than God himself.

 

[askeptic]

Thal59:

This would be easy to rectify. Please give me the name of anyone else that the Lord called Kepha (Rock.) What you are missing is a basic understanding of first century Jewish expression. Please look at Luke 22:31-34. It starts with the Lord saying… Simon, Simon. In verse 33, Simon proclaims he is willing to go to prison and death for Jesus. All of a sudden, in verse 34, Jesus says… “I tell thee, Peter…”

Is the Lord speaking to two different people?

In the passage you are talking about, the name Peter is used to identify him as a person or as an apostle. The name Kephas is used in relation to the 3 pillars of the church, to identify him as the “Rock” Christ has made him upon which His church is being built.

“Peter” as his person, “Kepha” as his role, but the same person.

Thal59

I cannot respond at this point because I need to study this situation more.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

[1]
If it was then I wonder what God was doint during the Inquisition and other grave insjustices of the Catholic Church. [2] I wonder why the Church never fought for the rights of women (or for that matter why Christ himself didn’t condemn slavery and sexism). [3] If the papacy was founded by God then the Old Testament is actually the word of God, and I would wonder what kind of a God would flood everyone (including innocent children), would send plagues onto the Egyption population, would fail to condemn polygamy and slavery even though it was practiced by the Jews, would again fail to protect women from injustices, and would order stonings for offenses such as breaking the sabbath or cursing your parents.

[4] Above all I would wonder why the best of Jesus’ teachings (love your neighbor, forgive etc.) were independently invented by other human beings (Buddhism, Confucianism - possibly spelled this wrong).

[5] I would wonder why the Word of God doesn’t read like the Word of God, and why modern society has been able to devise a more just social structure than God himself.

Hello askeptic;

Quite a list of complaints. I’ll do my best to respond charitably:

[1] I would venture to guess that God did not approve of the sinful acts undertaken by men during the inquisition or “other injustices” but if you want to judge the Church you also have to consider all of the good that it has done in its 2000 year history. Not that the deaths of innocents should evern be excused or condoned, but to condemn the Church for the acts of persons who were misguided is error. Would you say that the government of the United States was illegitimate just because it chose to inter Japanese-Americans during WWII? Same thing here. Also, I’m sure you are aware of the fact that JPII begged the world for forgiveness for all of the sins of omission and commission committed by the Church throughout its history. The Church reflects its members - broken and sinful but hopeful of God’s mercy.

[2] The Church did and does continue to fight for the rights of women. Its policies against artificial birth control and a female ministerial priesthood do not per se make the Church a sexist institution. The same holds true for slavery. The Church was one of the first institutes to condemn the practice. Indeed, the early church reflects an egalitarialism among members in which slaves and free were seen as equals before God. And if you take the time to read the NT it is quite clear that Christ is not an advocate for slavery or misogyny. He is a God of Love.

[3] There is no question that the OT is accepted as inspired by God. Yes, there are depictions of slavery and polygamy. Yes, God’s wrath does seem much more robust in the OT then in the NT. But in the larger picture, it is the OT that depicts humanity in its broken state, awaiting the coming of the savior. Depicting polygamy and slavery - two conventions of the time - is not advocating for them, nor is it condoning. Also, the mosaic laws resulted from the total rejection of God by the people when they fell down before the golden calf. You are glossing over a great deal of the context to make your assertions.

[4] Actually, none of the moral teachings go as far as the teaching of Christ - who scandalized the people of the time by teaching them to love their enemy! Doctrinally, the teaching of Jesus eclipsed those of the Buddha (and others) because He taught of a loving God in heaven who loves each one of us like a “Daddy.” Christ taught about the possibility of a close personal relationship with God - one that we are to reflect in our dealings with others. This is not the teaching of anyone but Christ.

[5] The Word of God does read like the Word of God. And as far a a “just society” is concerned - when was God ever able to establish a just society among human beings on Earth? And where is this “more just society” of which you speak? Most of the world still lives in grinding poverty and varying degrees of political oppression. Those few countries in which democracy has been able to flower are countries with deep ties to the christian ideals espoused by the Church for the past two millenia.

 

[El_Catolico]

Well, askeptic, if you don’t believe that Jesus was divine or had any special authority whatsoever, why are you trying to argue that the Catholic Church was not founded by Jesus? What does it matter?

If it was then I wonder what God was doint during the Inquisition and other grave insjustices of the Catholic Church.

1. Human beings commit grave injustices, not the Church. The Catholic Church has existed since the first century A.D. (and has enjoyed substantial political power at times). It is inevitable that some human beings would mess up. They would have commited these injustices even if the Church had not existed (and probably to a much greater extent).
2. Lets put things in perspective. The Inqusition, all told, killed little more than a thousand people in its existence. The Communists, on the other hand, killed about 72 million people in less than a century. And they were atheists. Militant atheists. They shared the exact same attitude to Christianity as you do now. That is another sobering thought for you to consider.

 

[mercygate]

askeptic:

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.

Kephas, translated into Greek as Petros, is nowhere known as a proper name either in ancient Aramaic or in Greek.

I wish you would ask questions with the presumption that a reasonable answer is available.

 

[Roady]

Brian Ingram:

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

Roady here…this is what I said with my first post. The catholic church is built upon Peter. But the true church is built upon Jesus Christ. Enough “arguing” about it. I disagree that you interpreted it correctly, but I agree that your church is built upon Peter, and his successors. Just for a flavour change, it’s very odd that Jesus would build his church on so many corrupt popes. This should be more evidence that the true church is not built upon men.

Roady

 

[Roady]

askeptic:

If it was then I wonder what God was doint during the Inquisition and other grave insjustices of the Catholic Church. I wonder why the Church never fought for the rights of women (or for that matter why Christ himself didn’t condemn slavery and sexism). If the papacy was founded by God then the Old Testament is actually the word of God, and I would wonder what kind of a God would flood everyone (including innocent children), would send plagues onto the Egyption population, would fail to condemn polygamy and slavery even though it was practiced by the Jews, would again fail to protect women from injustices, and would order stonings for offenses such as breaking the sabbath or cursing your parents.

Above all I would wonder why the best of Jesus’ teachings (love your neighbor, forgive etc.) were independently invented by other human beings (Buddhism, Confucianism - possibly spelled this wrong).

I would wonder why the Word of God doesn’t read like the Word of God, and why modern society has been able to devise a more just social structure than God himself.

Greetings Askeptic, The Bible says “whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” That’s the bottom line.

Roady

 

[Atreyu]

askeptic:

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.

If you won’t believe us on this simple fact, maybe you will believe Wikipedia’s article on aramaic:
Cephas

John 1:42

He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John, you shall be called Cephas", which is translated 'Peter'.

1 Corinthians 1:12

But I say that each of you says "I am of Paul", or "I am of Apollos", or "I am of Cephas", or "I am of Christ".

In these two passages, ‘Cephas’ is given as the nickname of the apostle better known as Simon Peter. The Greek word is transliterated Κηφας (Kêphas).

The apostle’s given name appears to be Simon, and he is given the Aramaic nickname, kêfâ or kîfâ, meaning ‘rock’. The final sigma (s) is added in Greek to make the name masculine rather than feminine. That the meaning of the name was more important than the name itself is evidenced by the universal acceptance of the Greek translation, Πετρος (Petros). It is not known why Paul uses the Aramaic name rather than the Greek name for Simon Peter when he writes to the church in Corinth. Perhaps, he is writing at a time before Cephas came to be popularly known as Peter.

In the Aramaic alphabet it would be …
You mentioned before something about searching for the truth. Maybe it’s about time you admitted this simplest of truths? Peter and Kephas are the same person; there is no doubt about this.

 

[Atreyu]

Roady did you read my reply to you at all? What is the foundation of the Church, according to Ephesians 2?

 

[askeptic]

Atreyu:

If you won’t believe us on this simple fact, maybe you will believe Wikipedia’s article on aramaic:
Cephas

John 1:42

He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John, you shall be called Cephas", which is translated 'Peter'.

1 Corinthians 1:12

But I say that each of you says "I am of Paul", or "I am of Apollos", or "I am of Cephas", or "I am of Christ".

In these two passages, ‘Cephas’ is given as the nickname of the apostle better known as Simon Peter. The Greek word is transliterated Κηφας (Kêphas).

The apostle’s given name appears to be Simon, and he is given the Aramaic nickname, kêfâ or kîfâ, meaning ‘rock’. The final sigma (s) is added in Greek to make the name masculine rather than feminine. That the meaning of the name was more important than the name itself is evidenced by the universal acceptance of the Greek translation, Πετρος (Petros). It is not known why Paul uses the Aramaic name rather than the Greek name for Simon Peter when he writes to the church in Corinth. Perhaps, he is writing at a time before Cephas came to be popularly known as Peter.

In the Aramaic alphabet it would be …
You mentioned before something about searching for the truth. Maybe it’s about time you admitted this simplest of truths? Peter and Kephas are the same person; there is no doubt about this.

I said I would look into it. I didn’t look into it before, I have not read the whole Bible and am not able to make a judgment. I can’t look into it right now because I simply don’t have the time.

What do I plan to do? Find out if Cephas and Kephas is the same, whether that was a person’s name at the time of Jesus (like now someone can be called Rocky), read all of Paul’s letters to see whether he defers to Kephas, and whether there is indication in Paul that Kephas is “the rock on whom Christ built his Church” rather than just someone’s name or nickname etc.

But since you brought up the Corinthians passage, lets look at some of the context surrounding it:

**11 For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you.
12 I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to 5 Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Kephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” **
13 6 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I give thanks (to God) that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15 so that no one can say you were baptized in my name.

This shows that at the time of Paul’s writing early Christianity was at least in some places divided into factions: some claimed to defer to Paul, others to Apollos, other to Kephas, others to Christ.

Isn’t this a perfect place to acknowledge that Christ established a Church on Kephas and that people belong to Chirst and obey Kephas here on earth?

Why does Paul rebuke Kephas in the passage mentioned earlier in this thread and suggests that while Peter is the authority for the Jews he is the authority for the Gentiles.

Even if Peter and Kephas are the same person, the same inconsitencies are still present, and they are worthy of everyone’s investigation.

 

[Reena]

I am the same person as ASkeptic using this ID becaue the other was suspended.

I wrote my apology here because after I read over my posts I realized some of them were wrong:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=97749

 

[Thal59]

Roady:

Roady here…this is what I said with my first post. The catholic church is built upon Peter. But the true church is built upon Jesus Christ. Enough “arguing” about it. I disagree that you interpreted it correctly, but I agree that your church is built upon Peter, and his successors. Just for a flavour change, it’s very odd that Jesus would build his church on so many corrupt popes. This should be more evidence that the true church is not built upon men.

Roady

Roady here…this is what I said with my first post. The catholic church is built upon Peter. But the true church is built upon Jesus Christ. <<<

This is nonsense. Christ “authorized” Peter and his successors to be His vicar. The Catholic church is therefore the true church built upon Jesus Christ “through” Peter and his successors.

Just for a flavour change, it’s very odd that Jesus would build his church on so many corrupt popes.<<<

Please list the corrupt Popes and their crimes, thank you.

Thal59

 

[Atreyu]

Thal there were plenty of corrupt popes, I don’t think you’re going to do very well there… That being said, it’s hardly something to be worried about! They’re just humans after all…

 

[mercygate]

askeptic:

Even if Peter and Kephas are the same person, the same inconsitencies are still present, and they are worthy of everyone’s investigation.

Right. And since no Catholic in 2000 years has ever read the Bible anyway, you are the first person to raise these earth-shaking issues.

 

[mercygate]

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.

I don’t know how I missed this post yesterday but once again, FCGEM, you knock my socks off. I never noticed that. Blows me away!

 

[Thal59]

Atreyu:

Thal there were plenty of corrupt popes, I don’t think you’re going to do very well there… That being said, it’s hardly something to be worried about! They’re just humans after all…

Perhaps you could answer the question then. Can you give me a list of corrupt popes and their crimes?

Thal59

 

[buffalo]

askeptic:

Furthermore, John was written around 90AD, after all the synoptic Gospels and 60 years after Jesus’ death.

You might be interested in reading the following. It clearly debunks this.

THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS [According to the Clementine Tradition]

		 [**By**](http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-1.htm)

		 [**Dennis Barton**](http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-1.htm)

		 [**
		The Gospels are Historical**](http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-1.htm)