How Is The Pope Actually Advocated By Scripture?

[JonathonofOhio]

…The mere fact that the Greek has two distinct words for rock at least suggests the possibility (if not the probability) that Jesus spoke two distinct Aramaic words–kepha for Peter and perhaps minra for “this rock.”…

Your entire argument against the office of the papacy, and Christ being it’s founder, hinges on a weak argument over the possibility that Christ used two words in Greek.

Let’s just say for arguments sake it WAS written in Greek and the words petra/Petros were used. What does that prove?

Petros: a piece of rock; a stone; a single stone; movable, insecure, shifting, or rolling.
petra: a rock; a cliff; a projecting rock; mother rock; huge mass; solid formation; fixed; immovable; enduring.

Are you assuming that the Catholic Church teaches that Peter is the Rock and Jesus is not the Rock, and that we believe the Church is built upon Peter? If so, this is a straw man argument, because the Church has never historically taught this.

Peter/Petros/Kepha/Cephas means rock (a moveable rock), and the immovable rock is Christ (petra). Jesus is making Peter a rock/stone when he changes his name, and Christ is the unmovable Rock on which this stone is laid. Peter is the first stone laid on top of the foundation, which is Christ. Now, it is important to understand from the passage that it was Peter who spoke for the others when he recognized the Rock, saying, " You are the Christ the Son of the living God;". The Church is not from Peter, the Church is from Christ. Jesus is saying: “I will build you upon Myself, not Myself upon you.”, and Peter is the one who represents whoever acknowledges that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God; and there is the leadership role that Peter is given, not just because he is the first stone laid on the foundation, but because he is the one who speaks for the whole Church when he professes “You are the Christ the Son of the living God.”

Recall that Paul said there were men who wished to be built upon men, who said, “I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,”. But others who didn’t want to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, “I am of Christ.” When the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.

The Greek words more accurately show the Catholic interpretation of the passage that Jesus was making Peter the leader of the Church and that on Himself he was building the Church. By using the Greek word Petros, the translator (or the author) shows that this rock can be moved; it is not perfect, but it is an important part of the structure, and Peter is the first stone of this structure. That structure is the Church, and it is Christ who laid the first stone, and the Church continues on to this day, stone on top of stone, upon a solid foundation, which is the unmovable Rock, Jesus Christ.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

My response to John of Ohio, p. 1

What doesn’t make sense is that you in one paragraph claim Matthew wrote “petra” and “petros”,

Yes, because there are thousands of Greek manuscripts which attest to this fact. How does this not make sense to you?

and then you admit we don’t know what language it is written in,

No. You’re misreading/misrepresenting me. We do know what language Matthew wrote in—Greek. Whether or not he also wrote in Aramaic, we do not know.

A non-sequitur is something that doesn’t follow.

Correct.

If Paul used the name of Kepha it follows he got it from somewhere,

Correct. But where from? You can’t assume that he got it by reading Matthew’s gospel, when there is no evidence that Paul ever had a copy of it (especially if Paul wrote his letters before Matthew wrote his gospel.).

and since the word [kepha] means “stone” or “rock”, and he was writing in Greek and still used the Hebrew name for Peter,

First, “kepha” is Aramaic, not Hebrew. But yes, Paul most often used a transliterated form of the Aramaic, i.e., “Cephas” written in Greek letters to refer to Peter. That said, he occasionally simply uses “Peter” [Petros] as well (see Galatians 2:7-8).

it follows that he meant it to be interpreted that Peter is the leader who has given him approval, and, therefore, authority to preach the Gospel, and this conclusion considers the context of the letter not just the meaning of the words. Drawing a reasonable and logical conclusion is not a non-sequitur.

But your conclusion is neither reasonable nor logical, so it is a non-sequitur, as I will explain. But first, let’s point out the rather obvious red herring you’re throwing out here: You mention that Peter is the leader who gives Paul approval, as if that fact has anything to do with the discussion at hand. Paul’s authority to preach the gospel comes directly from Jesus, but even if it came from Peter, what does this have to do with whether or not there’s an Aramaic original of Matthew from which Paul learned to call Peter “Cephas?”

That Paul more often used “Cephas” than “Petros,” does not mean there’s an Aramaic original of Matthew from which Paul got the term. Such a conclusion simply does not follow from the facts that we have. In other words, we can acknowledge that Simon Bar-Jonah was regularly called “kepha” or “Cephas” in the early church on the basis of the evidence we have. But to jump to the conclusion that Matthew therefore originally composed his gospel in Aramaic is the very definition of a non-sequitur.

Long after the fact? The evidence I was pointing to was written between 100 and 140 A.D. which is not long after Matthew is said to have been written, which historians place between 80-90 A.D.

Fair enough. But there’s still no Aramaic manuscript evidence—just Pappias’ vague claim about a “Hebrew dialect” from which Matthew had “put together” his account. But even more to the point is this: Even if we regard as probable that Matthew originally composed his gospel in Aramaic, we still don’t know which words he chose. It is one thing to say that he wrote in Aramaic. It’s quite another to say these are the words or word he used for “rock” in Matthew 16:18.

As a matter of fact we can: based on the simple fact that it doesn’t make sense that he would suddenly speak Greek to a group of Aramaic/Hebrew speaking disciples.

But you still can’t rule it out if both Jesus and the disciples could speak and understand Greek. The city of Ceasaria Philipi was made by many craftsmen (“teknon” in Greek), many of whom would have been drawn from nearby Galilee. Recall that Jesus himself was a teknon (Mark 6:3). Since Greek was the language of both commerce and the lingua franca that craftsmen would have used to speak to their Roman taskmasters, it isn’t unthinkable that “blue collar” Galileans regularly spoke Greek. Now don’t misunderstand. I am not saying for one minute that the conversation recorded in Matthew must have taken place in Greek simply because that is the only record that we have. I am only saying that it’s not impossible that it could have. If that is so, then the most we can say is that Jesus “most likely” spoke to his disciples in Aramaic—even in a Greek-speaking area among those who could converse in Greek. In other words, you can’t say something is definite (as you are saying) when in reality it is only more or less probable.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

My reply to John of Ohio, p. 2

Again, this is Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, because you are asserting that since ‘we’ do not know the exact words spoken, the office of the papacy was NOT established by Christ Himself, but was invented by man at some point after Christ.

And once again, you’re putting words in my mouth. Let’s try one more time. Argumentum ad Ignorantium is to say, “Because we don’t know that X is not the case, therefore X is the case.” But this is not my argument at all. Nor—at this point in my argument—am I saying anything one way or the other about the papacy. What I am saying is this:

1. We do NOT know for certain that Jesus spoke the words of Matthew 16:18-19 in Aramaic.
2. We do NOT know which Aramaic words he used, even if it could be demonstrated as certain that he did speak to them in Aramaic.
3. Even if Jesus said, “you are KEPHA and upon this KEPHA,” we still would NOT know if “KEPHA” has the same referent.

Now, if I were to add, “therefore the papacy is untrue,” that would be a non-sequitur. But that is not my claim. Rather, my claim is that the only evidence that we have available to us comes in the form of thousands of Greek manuscripts, all of which mention two words for “rock”—one for Simon Bar Jonah (Petros) and one for “this rock” (petra). Therefore any conclusions we draw must be based on that Greek evidence that we do have, and not upon the hypothetical Aramaic evidence that we do not have. Make sense?

No. “Kepha” is Hebrew, not Aramaic.

Sorry, but you’re just plain wrong about this. Kepha is Aramaic. The Aramaic Targumim typically translate two Hebrew words for rock, “cela” and “eben.” The most common Hebrew word, however, is “tswur” and “kepha” never translates it. Instead, the Aramaic Targumim use the word “minra.”

Your entire argument against the office of the papacy, and Christ being it’s founder, hinges on a weak argument over the possibility that Christ used two words in Greek.

I haven’t even begun to give you my “entire argument.” But there can be no doubt that there are two words in Greek (Petros and petra.) It’s the only evidence we have. We derive doctrine from the evidence we have, not from hypothetical evidence we do not have.

Let’s just say for arguments sake it WAS written in Greek and the words petra/Petros were used. What does that prove?

It’s not “for the sake of argument”. Matthew was written in Greek. And in this case we have literally thousands of manuscripts which all attest to this fact that you so graciously concede here. What we do not have is evidence for the particular Aramaic word or words that may or may not stand behind the Greek that we do have.

Petros: a piece of rock; a stone; a single stone; movable, insecure, shifting, or rolling.petra: a rock; a cliff; a projecting rock; mother rock; huge mass; solid formation; fixed; immovable; enduring.

I see you may be the victim of some rather dated scholarship on the meaning of Petros and petra respectively. In point of fact, while the words can have the meanings you mention, they are more often used interchangeably and often within the works of the same author. So whatever meaning is assigned to petra can be used of petros and vice versa. There is therefore no way to be certain that Matthew intended his reader to infer distinct meanings for the two terms; rather more likely it is the fact that he chooses two distinct words (that are basically synonymous) that suggests that two distinct referents may be in view. If so, then Simon is the “Petros,” but arguably not the “petra.”

Now, it is important to understand from the passage that it was Peter who spoke for the others when he recognized the Rock, saying, " You are the Christ the Son of the living God;"

He spoke “for others,” but in what way? Was he their representative, thereby speaking on behalf of them? Or is his confession somehow typical of that of every believer? I ask because surely you know that long before Peter made his confession, all the other disciples had done the same. Consider Matthew 14:33: “And those in the boat [the other disciples] worshiped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’” Peter is doing nothing in Matthew 16:18 that the other disciples had not already done back in 14:33. Nor does Peter receive any prerogative in Matthew 16:19, that the other disciples do not receive in Matthew 18:18.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

My reply to John of Ohio, p. 3

The Greek words more accurately show the Catholic interpretation of the passage that Jesus was making Peter the leader of the Church and that on Himself he was building the Church. By using the Greek word Petros, the translator (or the author) shows that this rock can be moved; it is not perfect, but it is an important part of the structure, and Peter is the first stone of this structure.

Problems abound here:

1. First, is it really “the Catholic interpretation”? I ask because if there is a passage that Rome has defined, it is this one. The papacy rests on the claim that “this rock” refers to Peter and by extension his successors. But it sounds like you’re saying that Christ is “this rock.” That in deed would be an interpretation consistent with the “catholic tradition” (small c), as several church Fathers held that view, but it certainly isn’t the Roman Catholic tradition with respect to Peter.
2. As mentioned earlier, virtually no scholar today believes that Matthew intended to distinguish Petros from petra on the basis of the meaning of the words (as the words are more likely synonyms); rather those few who do think Matthew intended a distinction do so simply on the fact that there are two distinct words.

Let me just close with an opinion. If you believe that the Jesus conferred on Peter (and all his successors) a “primacy of universal jurisdiction” over the entire church and that this also justifies the claims to infallibility, then you’re going to need far more proof than you’ve offered us so far. The interpretation you offer us rests, not on necessary deductions, but rather upon inferences that are more or less probable. So at the end of the day, Rome’s claims to be able to give infallible doctrinal definitions is only as good as the argument that establishes Rome’s infallibility to begin with. But that argument largely rests on an interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 that is only more or less probable. Extraordinary claims (like infallibility and Roman primacy) require extraordinary evidence. But that evidence simply isn’t to be found in Matthew 16:18-19.

 

[Holly3278]

There is much evidence for the Papacy in Scripture. See this link:

scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

 

[Abu]

Post #16 irrefutably shows how Christ placed Peter as His Supreme Vicar.

The historicity and authenticity of the Gospels are not in any real doubt.

Very revealing is The Hebrew Christ, Claude Tresmontant, Franciscan Herald Press, 1989, on the origins and dating of the Gospels. As Bishop John Charles Thomas writes in the foreword: “There is nothing in the least unscientific in postulating that there was only a brief period of oral transmission before some of the Gospel materials began to be set down.”

The majority of “scholars” fail again. See the works of Jean Carmignac, John A. T. Robinson, and Claude Tresmontant, who mainly date the NT books prior to A.D. 70, with some of them written in the 30s.

Tresmontant shows in 318 pages, that “all four of the Gospels, as well as some of the other New Testament books, were evidently translations into Greek from earlier texts originally composed in Hebrew.” (p 319). Others agreeing include Jean Carmignac, Greek linguist John Wenham, the earliest being Anglican Bishop John Robinson.

For Matthew, there is evidence from the early church to support an Aramaic original; Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Augustine

 

[PJM]

My response to John of Ohio, p. 1

Quote:
What doesn’t make sense is that you in one paragraph claim Matthew wrote “petra” and “petros”,

THE REPLY
Yes, because there are thousands of Greek manuscripts which attest to this fact. How does this not make sense to you?

My additional comments: PJM
There is a logical explaination for this. here are THREE definitive reasons.

1. Matthews was the first Gospel written and because of this
2. Because this was understood, accepted and undispiuited; there was no further need to have aditional discussions. I can provide 50 biblical evidences of Peters primacy. send me a PM if you’d like a copy.
3. IT"S THE TRUTH as spoken by Jesus Christ Himself. The very fact that th Papacy has lasted 2,000 yars is the greatest possible evidence of its Godly origin and design.

The Early Church Fathers on
The Primacy of Peter/Rome
The Early Church Fathers understood from the beginning that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church.

Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1**[A.D. 95]).**

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 inter A.D. 180-190]).

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 grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian
[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; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loose
and, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

GOD CAN NEITHER DECEIVE OR BE DECEIVED:thumbsup:
GB,
Pat

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Reply to PJM, p. 1

Psalms 127:1
“Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain.”

This is a great attestation to the sovereignty of God. What it has to do with the papacy, however, isn’t at all clear. It looks like you’re rather gratuitously applying this to the papacy. But what’s to prevent anyone from using the scripture this way? A Mormon could prove the truth of his church on the same basis.

The decision of Peter as “Pope” rest with Christ alone. John.15: 16 “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you”

A prooftext without a context is a pretext. This is what you’re dong here. In the context of John 15, Christ is talking to his disciples about the basis for and purpose of election. In other words, they are saved because he first chose them. And they were chosen for the purpose of bearing fruit. What, pray tell, does this have to do with the papacy? Would anyone want to seriously defend the idea that, say, Alexander Borgia was chosen by Christ?

Mt. 16:18-19 “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Note please this in on the initiative of Jesus, not Peter. Jesus is say many critically important things in these two brief passages.

But what he’s not saying is that he is going to found the papacy, that Peter’s successors are given the same promises and that his successors are the bishops of Rome. But this is exactly what Vatican I claims he said.

1. I God intend to found ONE new religion and church.

There is nothing here about “religion.” Jesus is going to found a church on “this rock.” But to whom or what does “this rock” refer? That is the question that must be answered.

1. I God choose Peter [title not yet developed] to head this New Church.

No. The text simply doesn’t say that. If you posit Peter as the “head” of the church, then you have a two-headed church—Christ, who is clearly the head of the church (Colossians 1:18) and Peter, who while having the authority to bind and loose, clearly isn’t being “put in charge” in this passage or any other.

1. I do this because salvation rest upon its teachings which I personally warrant [Jn.14:16-17; Jn.17: 15-19; Jn.20:19-23, Mt. 28:19-20] and I am aware that I shall soon be put to death. In order that my teachings do not cease with my death; I Jesus set up a organization to carry on in my name, with my power and my authority.

The only provision that Jesus provided in light of his imminent death was the Paraclete—the Holy Spirit (John 14).

1. There is ONLY and one gate with access to heaven. I leave the key and the access to Peter and my beloved Apostles, to carry on for me.

Jesus promises to give Peter “keys,” (plural), not a single key. The power of these keys is the authority to “bind and loose.” Jesus also says, “I will give” (future tense), not, “I am giving” or “I have given.” So when does Peter receive these keys? There is no mention of the keys of the kingdom of heaven at any point in Matthew’s gospel after 16:19. But Matthew is all about the inclusio or “bookend” technique, which we see throughout—meaning what he promises in one part of his gospel, he delivers in another. It is inconceivable, therefore, that Matthew would not tell us in what way the “keys” are delivered to Peter. And we need look no further than 18:18, where the exact same binding/loosing terminology is found, only here it is generalized to all the disciples. Peter, therefore, is not given a unique authority; rather his authority is typical of that entrusted to all disciples. It is parallel to the same idea found in John 20:22-23 where the disciples are given the power to forgive/retain sins. It seems to me, therefore, in a gospel that has so much to say about forgiveness, that the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” are precisely about this. Is it any wonder that only a few verses after Peter “gets his keys” (with all the other disciples) we have Jesus explaining to Peter precisely how to use the keys—that he is to forgive not seven times, but seventy times seven?

1. The terms “bind” and “loose” were at the time they were spoken common legally binding terms for unlimited authority of governance. THAT is what is being passed on to Peter by Christ.

Maybe. The terms are found in rabbinical literature, which however came after Matthew wrote. While it is reasonable to assume that the NT retains the same meaning, it is ultimately the context of the NT itself that determines the meaning of those terms. Accordingly, we find that Matthew uses those terms within the context of church discipline, especially with respect to the issue of the forgiveness of sins. We therefore cannot assume that Jesus is simply giving Peter and the other disciples carte blanche authority over every aspect of life. In other words, it could be that the NT uses those terms more narrowly than the rabbis did.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Reply to PJM, 2

How could Jesus expect to accomplish what he commands: Mt. 28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” This would be an impossibility without the unlimited authority to Govern, guided by the HS, all teachings on all Faith belief-issues and all matters touching on moral issues.

Your argument is simply an assertion. But in fact the Great Commission can be accomplished and will be accomplished because the first evangelist is the Holy Spirit and the authority that is given, was given to Jesus himself. On that basis he says, “therefore go.” But nothing here says he in turn gave that authority to others. Quite the contrary. He retains “all authority” himself and because it is on that authority thatwe are to go and “make disciples.”

I can provide a list of 50 Biblical first for Peter

Let’s see them—and more importantly what you believe these “firsts” prove with respect to the specific claims of Roman Catholicism about the papacy.

NOTICE Mt. even calls Peter “FIRST” Mt. 10:2 The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb’edee, and John his brother.” And Peters is named first in every list of the Apostles.

Yes. But also keep in mind that is Matthew’s gospel that tells us, “the first shall be last” (Matthew 20:16). It is also Matthew who tells us that if we deny him before others, he will deny us (Matthew 10:33). So how does Peter “finish” in Matthew’s gospel—first or last? Let’s see: The last we read about Peter in Matthew’s gospel we find him denying Christ and “weeping bitterly.” Contrast this to Mark—one of Matthew’s sources—where Peter has a stellar finish. He is singled out at the empty tomb where the women are told to “go tell the disciples AND PETER” (Mark 16:7). Notice how Matthew deletes “and Peter” from his account. Why? Because those who deny Christ will be denied by him. Accordingly, where we would expect Peter to be receiving his shiny set of kingdom keys and to be explicitly put in charge of the church, we instead find no mention of his name; rather he is simply included implicitly among “the eleven.” That’s how the story of the “first pope” ends in the Gospel of Matthew.

1. Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, Rock, solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:18).

Which is most likely intended as an irony, given his portrayal throughout Matthew’s gospel. Recall that he is also given the monkers, “oligopistos” (you of little faith), “skandalon” (stumbling block) and “Satan,” in Matthew’s gospel. So in what sense does Matthew intend his readers to understand Simon as “rock”? Arguably he intends to draw a contrast between Peter and “this rock” upon which the church is built—namely the confession of all true believers that Jesus is the Son of God—just as all the other disciples had already confessed back in Matthew 14:33.

You mentioned other things, but I think this is enough on our plate for now.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

1. Matthews was the first Gospel written and because of this

Maybe. I don’t think we will ever know for certain, this side of eternity, who wrote first. Most scholars, liberals and conservatives (and everyone in between), believe Mark wrote first and that Matthew used him as a source. I don’t agree with them simply because they’re the majority; rather having considered the evidence, I think the case for Matthean priority is the most likely.

1. Because this was understood, accepted and undispiuited; there was no further need to have aditional discussions.

So if I’m understanding you correctly, you’ve pretty much decided to exclude mondern scholarly opinion from the discussion. It’s a settled issue for you despite the fact that it is far from clear that he wrote first.

I can provide 50 biblical evidences of Peters primacy. send me a PM if you’d like a copy.

I feel like I’ve seen these before. If they’re the same list that PaulC routinely cuts and pastes on these boards, then they’ve been refuted (by me in some cases) many times over. But perhaps there is something new under the sun, so go ahead and “show us the proof.”

1. IT"S THE TRUTH as spoken by Jesus Christ Himself. The very fact that th Papacy has lasted 2,000 yars is the greatest possible evidence of its Godly origin and design.

It’s old therefore it’s true? Is that your argument? Pagan mystery religion is even older. Is it therefore true? In fact, the NT leads us to the conclusion that false religion will be around until the end of days and that it will exist within the visible church.

 

[PJM]

---

Psalms 127:1
“Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain.” by PJM

Reply: This is a great attestation to the sovereignty of God. What it has to do with the papacy, however, isn’t at all clear. It looks like you’re rather gratuitously applying this to the papacy. But what’s to prevent anyone from using the scripture this way?

.

***My dear friend in Christ; space prohibits a detailed response; so lets just take the first three issues you raise.

It is because God is soverign that God can; and in fact did appoint Peter to head His One set of Faith beliefs embodied currently and continually via the line of popes; in todays RCC.

I can provide a list of 50 biblical proofs of this fact; BUT none of them use the term Pope which did not come into existence until the Forth century. The idea that the Church would exist w/o precise leadership is simply illogical and foolish.***

Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95].

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 A.D. 110].

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 180-190]).

The decision of Peter as “Pope” rest with Christ alone. John.15: 16 “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you” PJM

Reply: A prooftext without a context is a pretext. This is what you’re dong here.

NO my friend: It is about authority and a mandate to teach. See Mt. 28:19-20; and John 20:1-22 where Jesus passes his own Powers and Authority to Peter and the Apostles. PETER FIRST! “As the Father sent Me; SO TO I SEND YOU!.”

Jesus prepares Peter
Mt. 16:18-19; Jn 21:15-17 Jesus: feed/tend (all of) my sheep Lk 12:41-48 appointed, faithful steward Lk 22:32 Jesus: “…strengthen your brethren” Lk 22:32 Jesus: prays for faith of Peter only

Peter’s Leadership
Mt 18:21 Peter speaks for Apostles Mt 16:16 Peter speaks for Apostles Mt 16:17 Jesus accepts Peter’s leadership Mk 8:29 Peter speaks for Apostles Lk 8:45 Peter speaks for Apostles Lk 12:41 Peter speaks for Apostles Jn 6:69 Peter speaks for Apostles AA 2:14 led Apostles in preaching AA 4:1-13 Jews consider Peter the leader

Mt. 16:18-19 “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Note please this in on the initiative of Jesus, not Peter. Jesus is saying many critically important things in these two brief passages.PJM

Reply: But what he’s not saying is that he is going to found the papacy, that Peter’s successors are given the same promises and that his successors are the bishops of Rome. But this is exactly what Vatican I claims he said.

***My friend, you fail to comprehend the totalitity of what Jesus did here. “To bind and to loose” in this context refer precisely and specifically to powers of governance. Notice that no where is Peters authority questioned. WHY? because what Jesus did WAS clearly understood and accepted. At the time spoken many kingdomes were walled in with REAL gtes and REAL keys. As was Jerusalem. It was a common practice for the kings of these kingdomes to appoint a Prime Minister who held the keys; locked and unlocked the gates and governed with anonymous and unrestricted powers and answered ONLY to the king. This is exactly what Christ was doing, and commissioned Peter to do."

NOTE also that the bible does not use the terms “Catholic, Protestant; doctrine, dogma, theology, sacraments, Mass” or many other terms like “Eucharist”; which are clearly implied in the bible. the fact that the WORD “pope” does not appear is not even releveant to an informed discussion of Christ/ God’s intent of His chosen form of leadership. In fact Mt. 16:19 itself authorizes the Church to create such a term and position.***.

God Bless you,
Pat

 

[PJM]

=Miguel Sastre;8482628]Reply to PJM, 2

Your argument is simply an assertion. But in fact the Great Commission can be accomplished and will be accomplished because the first evangelist is the Holy Spirit and the authority that is given, was given to Jesus himself. On that basis he says, “therefore go.” But nothing here says he in turn gave that authority to others. Quite the contrary. He retains “all authority” himself and because it is on that authority thatwe are to go and “make disciples.”

Why sure it does Look at John 20:19-22 and take note that the meaning here is to establish the RCC [The Way], and to trnasfere our Lords actual authority and powers to Peter and the Apostles. [Please don’t tell he was talking to someone else. I can disporove it but am getting the feeling that nothing and no one is going to chage your opinions no matter what evidence is presented. Are you just looking fo argu,ent or do you actually seek the truth?

Let’s see them—and more importantly what you believe these “firsts” prove with respect to the specific claims of Roman Catholicism about the papacy.

I just updated my blog; click on the bottom below my signature

Yes. But also keep in mind that is Matthew’s gospel that tells us, “the first shall be last” (Matthew 20:16). It is also Matthew who tells us that if we deny him before others, he will deny us (Matthew 10:33). So how does Peter “finish” in Matthew’s gospel—first or last? Let’s see: The last we read about Peter in Matthew’s gospel we find him denying Christ and “weeping bitterly.”

.

Lk. 22:32 [Jesus speaking to Peter] “but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; **and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.” ** **John.2:16-17 **"A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.”

Which is most likely intended as an irony, given his portrayal throughout Matthew’s gospel. Recall that he is also given the monkers, “oligopistos” (you of little faith), “skandalon” (stumbling block) and “Satan,” in Matthew’s gospel. So in what sense does Matthew intend his readers to understand Simon as “rock”?

YOUR MISSING THE CRITICAL POINT: its not important what Matthew thinks; the issue is what Jesus who is God has ordained! And your also missing what matthew is actually relaying too.

Check out my BLOG; there is plenty of evidence there.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[pablope]

Peter is called the first pope. And yet…wasn’t the gospel of Peter was “rejected” to be in the main bible book because it sounded too gnostic?
But isn’t it the only gospel–or one of the few–that actually identifies itself as being written by the apostle himself as opposed to the other four in the canon that don’t write in first person that they are themselves (was that totally unclear?):

*“But I Simon Peter and Andrew my brother took our nets and went to the sea;” — GoP, 14. *

Not that he wrote it. Scholars say no, he did not (but they say the same about most of the others as well…?)

Mark was a disciple of Peter, and his constant companion. The Christians at Rome requested Mark to put into writing what Peter preached.

So, the Mark’s Gospel could actually be called Peter’s Gospel…as recounted and written by Mark.

 

[PJM]

=pablope;8488919]Mark was a disciple of Peter, and his constant companion. The Christians at Rome requested Mark to put into writing what Peter preached.

OFFERED IN SUPPORT OF YOUR POSITION AND IN REPLY TO THE SAME ERRANT POST.

So, the Mark’s Gospel could actually be called Peter’s Gospel…as recounted and written by Mark.

DUH! What about 1st. and second Peter? What about 2nd. Tim 3:16-17?

Anyone one foolish enough to discount Peter; his God given and commanded role; is looking for a faith that is NOT biblically grounded.

PLEASE take the time to log unto my Blog for more evidence.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Abu]

Miguel Sastre #33
We don’t know that the scene that Matthew records in Greek was actually spoken in Aramaic. It’s merely a probability, albeit a strong one. But given that Jesus and his disciples almost certainly spoke Greek as well and that Greek is the earliest manuscript evidence we have, we simply can’t rule out the possibility that the entire scene—which took place in Greek-speaking Gentile territory—may have actually took place in Greek.

Such speculation is totally unwarranted.

Of particular interest is the compelling evidence for earlydate /eyewitness historicity offered by scholars such as the late Fr. Jean Carmignac, philologist and recognized authority on biblical Hebrew; and the late Claude Tresmontant, Hebraist and professor of philosophy at the Sorbonne, University of Paris.

In his Conclusion section of The Birth of the Synoptic Gospels, Fr. Jean Carmignac stated: “It is certain that Mark, Matthew, and the documents used by Luke were redacted in a Semitic Language” and “It is probable that this Semitic language is Hebrew rather than Aramaic” (Italics in original).

In the Epilogue of his book *The Hebrew Christ *Claude Tresmontant draws a similar conclusion in regard to all four Gospels: “[A]ll four of the Gospels, as well as some of the other New Testament books, were evidently translations into Greek from earlier texts originally composed in Hebrew.”
As the eminent Claude Tresmontant shows in 318 pages, “all four of the Gospels, as well as some of the other New Testament books, were evidently translations into Greek from earlier texts originally composed in Hebrew.” (p 319). Others agreeing include Jean Carmignac, Greek linguist John Wenham, the earliest being Anglican Bishop John Robinson.

The editor of *Ecclesiastical History *adds the following footnote to the comment of Papias: “The author here, doubtless, means Syro-Chaldaic, which is sometimes in Scripture, and writers, called Hebrew.” Papias adds that it had to be translated, which suggests that it was not in the language of the church. Smith agrees with Origin that Matthew wrote to the Jews, but unlike Origen, he does not mention that it was written in Hebrew. The compilers of The Bible Almanac mention that Matthew wrote first in Syriac, Syro-Chaldaic, Aramaic, or Hebrew and that he may have rewritten later in Greek for wider use.

The implications of these early-date / eyewitness findings are profound, especially in view of the predominant belief among Catholic and other biblical scholars today that none of the four Gospels originated with an eyewitness and that all are of doubtful historicity.

 

[PJM]

=DaddyGirl;8489918]OH! I didn’t know that! Where can I find out all the details about this? About “the Christians at Rome” requesting Mark to put Peter’s words into writing? Where is this written?

Hi,

My daughter in a “Daddy girl too”

So allow me to ask; are you seeking only verification of the Mark-Peter connection or do you have some more serious questions about our Catholic Faith.

Given your background what are your thoughts of the bibles authority?

And if you’d really like to understand the role and primacy of Peter; may I suggest you viir my BLOG where I provide an in depth study of that very issue.

God Bless you,

Pat

 

[PJM]

=DaddyGirl;8489918]OH! I didn’t know that! Where can I find out all the details about this? About “the Christians at Rome” requesting Mark to put Peter’s words into writing? Where is this written?

If you want more than this log onto the Catholic Encycppedia at www.newadvent.org

“When we turn to tradition, Papias (Eusebius, Church History III.39) asserts not later than A.D. 130, on the authority of an “elder”, that Mark had been the interpreter (hermeneutes) of Peter, and wrote down accurately, though not in order, the teaching of Peter (see below, GOSPEL OF SAINT MARK). A widespread, if somewhat late, tradition represents St. Mark as the founder of the Church of Alexandria. Though strangely enough Clement and Origen make no reference to the saint’s connection with their city, it is attested by Eusebius (op. cit., II, xvi, xxiv), by St. Jerome (“De Vir. Illust.”, viii), by the Apostolic Constitutions (VII, xlvi), by Epiphanius (“Hær;.”, li, 6) and by many later authorities. The “Martyrologium Romanum” (25 April) records: “At Alexandria the anniversary of Blessed Mark the Evangelist . . . at Alexandria of St. Anianus, Bishop, the disciple of Blessed Mark and his successor in the episcopate, who fell asleep in the Lord.” The date at which Mark came to Alexandria is uncertain. The Chronicle of Eusebius assigns it to the first years of Claudius (A.D. 41-4), and later on states that St. Mark’s first successor, Anianus, succeeded to the See of Alexandria in the eighth year of Nero (61-2). This would make Mark Bishop of Alexandria for a period of about twenty years. This is not impossible, if we might suppose in accordance with some early evidence that St. Peter came to Rome in A.D. 42, Mark perhaps accompanying him. But Acts raise considerable difficulties. On the assumption that the founder of the Church of Alexandria was identical with the companion of Paul and Barnabas, we find him at Jerusalem and Antioch about A.D. 46 (Acts 12:25), in Salamis about 47 (Acts 13:5), at Antioch again about 49 or 50 (Acts 15:37-9), and when he quitted Antioch, on the separation of Paul and Barnabas, it was not to Alexandria but to Cyprus that he turned (Acts 15:39). There is nothing indeed to prove absolutely that all this is inconsistent with his being Bishop of Alexandria at the time, but seeing that the chronology of the Apostolic age is admittedly uncertain, and that we have no earlier authority than Eusebius for the date of the foundation of the Alexandrian Church, we may perhaps conclude with more probability that it was founded somewhat later. There is abundance of time between A.D. 50 and 60, a period during which the New Testament is silent in regard to St. Mark, for his activity in Egypt”

God Bless,
Pat.

 

[pablope]

Reply to PJM, p. 1

No.** The text simply doesn’t say that. If you posit Peter as the “head” of the church, then you have a two-headed church**

 

[pablope]

Maybe. We don’t know for certain what Aramaic word was spoken, or even if Aramaic was spoken at all. That “kepha” is the word behind “you are Peter [Petros]” seems likely given that elsewhere in the NT Peter is called “Cephas.” But absent any Aramaic manuscript evidence, all we have is conjecture.

onsideration, or else we have a case of special pleading.

Oh…we do know…from John 1:42…Jesus says he shall be called Cephas…then all of a sudden, Jesus would use the greek in Matthew?

I conclude that indeed, Jesus originally spoke those words in Matthew 16 in aramaic/hebrew…referring to Simon as Cephas/Kepha.

John 1:42

New International Version (NIV)

42 And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter[a]).

New King James Version (NKJV)
42 And he brought him to Jesus.
Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, “You are Simon the son of Jonah.[a] You shall be called Cephas”

New American Standard Bible (NASB)
42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of [a]John; you shall be called Cephas” (which is translated **Peter).

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
42And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.

Darby Translation (DARBY)
42And he led him to Jesus. Jesus looking at him said, Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called **Cephas (which interpreted is stone).

 

[JonathonofOhio]

No. “Kepha” is Hebrew, not Aramaic.

Sorry, but you’re just plain wrong about this. Kepha is Aramaic. The Aramaic Targumim typically translate two Hebrew words for rock, “cela” and “eben.” The most common Hebrew word, however, is “tswur” and “kepha” never translates it. Instead, the Aramaic Targumim use the word “minra.”

Well one source I read said it is Hebrew, but it could have been their opinion, since I doubt we can know for sure the exact origins of the name “Kepha”; other sources just say it’s Aramaic. Quite frankly though I do not see how this has any effect on my beliefs. The fact remains that Simon’s name was changed to Peter, and that name in any language still means rock or stone.

My response to John of Ohio, p. 1

What doesn’t make sense is that you in one paragraph claim Matthew wrote “petra” and “petros”,

Well, since you apparently are going to proof-text my responses now, I’m going to just stop now. You quoted only part of my response so that it would seem that I said something I did not. That is a comma at the end of that quote, not a period.