If the Rock is Peter's faith

[guanophore]

…” He says Paul and Peter founded the church in Rome which conflicts with Paul’s letter to the Romans. I don’t know who founded it, but Paul is likely to eventually have arrived there and Peter may have been there too. earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book3.html

I don’t think there is any contradiction. Romans was written before Paul and Peter were together in Rome. At that time, there may not have been any Apostle, but only those beginning with the converts from Pentecost who returned believers.

Jesus is the Founder and builder of the Church. Peter and Paul built such a strong foundation doctrinally that Rome was looked upon by the whole Christian world as a sure foundation of the faith. Even when Paul wrote, he was able to say:

7To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 8First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being proclaimed all over the world. Rom. 1

Their faith was later “founded” in the Apostolic teaching from both Peter and Paul.

…some of the other apostles did amazing things that aren’t captured in writing. But even if they didn’t, they weren’t necessarily the subjects of Peter. I don’t know if I see examples of them following orders from Peter.

Certainly amazing things were done through many. But I agree with you, the leadership taught by Jesus is not that others are “subjects”. In fact, Paul teaches that we should all be subject to one another. Peter was a servant leader, and very humble. He did not “give orders” but set the standard of faith, and allowed the Holy Spirit to work. The closest thing we see to an “order” would be what he said to Ananias and Sapphira, and that had the character of speaking out the Truth. Peter had authority in this situation, but his proclamation reflected the work of the Holy Spirit, not his own. Our popes today are the same way.

**This is thought to be a forgery –

I think there has been some confusion here. Your link goes to the writings of Clement of Rome, where the quote came from 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. [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

** It sounds like a complex quarrel between the various bishops. Victor is identified as presiding over Rome; Irenaeus presides over Gaul; Soter presided over a church. Victor thought he could excommunicate part of the church for not agreeing with what was stated about Easter celebration dates. Others disagreed with him. This seems interesting and something I would like to research more. This is the most compelling argument for early evidence of the papacy that I have seen.

Yes it is influential. It is also the reason why today, Eastern Christians and Orthodox celebrate the Pasca according to the Hebrew passover calendar, where Rome and the Western Rites celebrate it according to the Roman calendar.

**Was Tertullian saying the church was built on Peter? I think he might have. But what does he mean with that….see the last quote…… [newadvent.org/fathers/0406.htm](http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0406.htm)

This is a fragment from another common controversy about married clergy vs celebate clergy. Yes, Tertullian considers the Church founded by Christ to be founded upon Peter, but I don’t think any more so than the other Apostles and Prophets mentioned in Ephesians. All these were in unity with Peter, as he was in unity with Christ.

 

[guanophore]

**newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm
This does call Rome doubly apostolic, but it doesn’t say that it has authority. It is mentioning apostolic churches. It is saying that these are also the churches founded by apostles – Corinth, Ephesus and the Thessalonians.

It goes without saying that Jesus gave all his authority to the Apostles, and they gave it to their successors, the Bishops. The “double Apostolic” refers to Peter and Paul laboring together to build up the foundation of the Church. When they arrived, there were already believers, as Rome was not “planted” by Apostles but emerged when converts returned there from the Holy Land, and probably were joined by other converts that travelled there during the years of Paul’s Apostolic missions.

It seems Tertullian thought that Peter was the rock and that he used the keys to unbar the heavenly kingdom and to bind and loose things himself only. He shares a similar view of Peter and the keys on his Prescription Against Heretics and Scorpiace where he says that all who have made the confession of faith carry the keys with them. Although he identifies Peter as the rock, I don’t think he is describing the papacy in his writings.

Well, this is like saying that the first playoff games were “superbowls”. They were not called that at the time because such a thing did not exist. Yet these games are now counted as “superbowls” and included in the number we use today. “Papacy” and “Pope” are Latin words that did not originate in Palestine. Further, the office/duty of the successors of Peter had to adapt as the Church grew. What was a mustard seed at the time of Peter became a huge tree. Peter could never have envisioned the growth of the Church, and how the role of his successor grew and changed to meet that need.

Speaking of which, I have been looking for the MP3’s of Paul’s two years of teaching at the hall of Tyrannus. If anyone knows where I can get these, I will pay premium.

Can you imagine what Paul would have done with modern media?!

 

[Rohzek]

Well, this is like saying that the first playoff games were “superbowls”. They were not called that at the time because such a thing did not exist. Yet these games are now counted as “superbowls” and included in the number we use today. “Papacy” and “Pope” are Latin words that did not originate in Palestine. Further, the office/duty of the successors of Peter had to adapt as the Church grew. What was a mustard seed at the time of Peter became a huge tree. Peter could never have envisioned the growth of the Church, and how the role of his successor grew and changed to meet that need.

That’s a very Hegelian view of the papacy and history.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

No one disputes Jesus is the leader of the Church. However, Peter was His Chief Apostle, making him superior to James, and even Paul.

 

[Darryl_B]

That’s a very Hegelian view of the papacy and history.

No it isn’t. It is an interesting philosophy but not applicable. The question for you is should the primacy of the Church by nature follow in the footsteps of the emperor when he moves locatively from point A to point B? But then who is that emperor now?

 

[susanlo]

I think there has been some confusion here. Your link goes to the writings of Clement of Rome, where the quote came from 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. [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

This one isn’t the forgery I mentioned. The forgery was from the Letter of Clement to James that was in your original post. It is listed half-way down the page in the Pseudo-Clementine writings on this link I had posted ( newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm ). Here is some more info on the forgeries made in Clement’s and others’ names. ( newadvent.org/cathen/05773a.htm )

It goes without saying that Jesus gave all his authority to the Apostles, and they gave it to their successors, the Bishops.

He gave them authority, but I don’t know that the apostles had the same authority that Jesus had. I think Jesus remained in authority over them. Maybe I am just reading your comment wrong.

Well, this is like saying that the first playoff games were “superbowls”. They were not called that at the time because such a thing did not exist. Yet these games are now counted as “superbowls” and included in the number we use today. “Papacy” and “Pope” are Latin words that did not originate in Palestine. Further, the office/duty of the successors of Peter had to adapt as the Church grew. What was a mustard seed at the time of Peter became a huge tree. Peter could never have envisioned the growth of the Church, and how the role of his successor grew and changed to meet that need.

The term pope and papacy did not exist yet. But mainly, the quote from Tertullian stated that Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the powers to bind and loose to Peter and no one else could ever have these. He attributes the keys to unbarring the entrance to the heavenly kingdom when he spoke to the crowds at Pentecost, “in which (kingdom) are loosed the sins that were beforetime bound; and those which have not been loosed are bound.” He then describes the encounter with Ananias and his vision from the Holy Spirit allowing uncircumcised to become Christians. “This sentence both loosed those parts of the law which were abandoned, and bound those which were reserved.” Tertullian thought that was the use of the keys and binding and loosing and they were for Peter alone (not passed down the generations.) So, I do feel that this is not saying the same thing with a different set of terminology, but a completely different concept.

 

[rcwitness]

Speaking of which, I have been looking for the MP3’s of Paul’s two years of teaching at the hall of Tyrannus. If anyone knows where I can get these, I will pay premium.

Can you imagine what Paul would have done with modern media?!

Sure… If you use PayPal, i can send them via WhatsApp.

Btw bro, please tell me that troll pic and Religion is temporary!!! :ehh:

 

[Rohzek]

No it isn’t. It is an interesting philosophy but not applicable. The question for you is should the primacy of the Church by nature follow in the footsteps of the emperor when he moves locatively from point A to point B? But then who is that emperor now?

Caesaropapism is a very lack luster charge these days. No historian takes it seriously. Yet, I am somehow still very impressed with the rigor displayed here. Probably because you made your post more about me and my faith rather than staying on topic. No worries though. I love talking about myself, because I am the most interesting man in the universe. I give your post a 9/11. And if you’re wondering why my posts are scaled out of 11, it’s because 11 is a higher number and therefore better.

And yes, it is Hegelian or quasi-Hegelian. And no, Hegel isn’t interesting. He was a bad philosopher. He is making a historicist argument that justifies the present form of the papacy. Which is fine if one wants to believe in historical destiny, but many people find such arguments more self-serving than empirical.

 

[Darryl_B]

Caesaropapism is a very lack luster charge these days. No historian takes it seriously. Yet, I am somehow still very impressed with the rigor displayed here. Probably because you made your post more about me and my faith rather than staying on topic. No worries though. I love talking about myself, because I am the most interesting man in the universe. I give your post a 9/11. And if you’re wondering why my posts are scaled out of 11, it’s because 11 is a higher number and therefore better.

And yes, it is Hegelian or quasi-Hegelian. And no, Hegel isn’t interesting. He was a bad philosopher. He is making a historicist argument that justifies the present form of the papacy. Which is fine if one wants to believe in historical destiny, but many people find such arguments more self-serving than empirical.

Valid questions have varying degrees of reactors.

 

[Reuben_J]

badnewsbarrett:

Simply from a practical standpoint, there must surely be a way for the confession to hang out there by itself once Peter dies, yes? In some form or fashion, I think everyone can agree that this is a Rock that doesn’t live or die based on whether Peter lives or dies. It is a Rock that lasts forever, whereas Peter does not, at least not on this Earth.

Yes, the Church, continued by the successors of Peter.

badnewsbarrett:

The question is, does the Rock last forever (unlike Peter) in the form of a highly centralized leadership position for which a successor is always appointed? Or does the Rock go on eternally in the form of an idea, a confession, a commonly held belief? One way or the other, there is some sort of Rock that continues to be a thing separate from the specific person of Peter long after the death of Peter. If that means it’s hanging out there by itself, I suppose it might be, but although Jesus did give Peter a new name, there’s also a sense in which a Rock is being referenced that did not go away when Peter did.

According to the promise of Jesus, ‘I shall be with you until the end of time’, so yes, it would be something that last. As long as the Church on earth exists, the rock of Peter continues to exist.

I think this is significant because if the rock is Peter’s confession, that confession would be perpetuated. If the rock is Peter himself, then that rock is to be perpetuated through Peter’s successors.

 

[Rohzek]

Valid questions have varying degrees of reactors.

Except my own religious denomination isn’t part of the discussion or even the topic of the thread. Keep it up try-hard.

 

[Cathoholic]

Simon’s name change to Peter was significant.

Biblical name changes are significant.

Peter was not a “name” given before Simon was renamed as far as we know (Abraham was referred to as a “rock” in Isaiah 51:1-2, but he not re-named as such).

(This was a “description”. Not a “name” for Abram who WAS renamed to Abraham)

Therefore trying to say there COULD be multiple Peters/Cephas’ wouldn’t be any more of a serious consideration than someone trying to posit that there were multiple Abrahams.

---

MATTHEW 16:13-20 13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, Who do men say that the Son of man is?
14 And they said, Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah,
and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets. 15 He said to them,
But who do you say that I am?
16 **Simon Peter replied, You are the Christ, the son of the living God. **
17 And Jesus answered him,
Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!
For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you,
but my Father who is in heaven.
18 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.
19 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.
20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

And notice what **wasn’t **said:

NOT MATTHEW 16:20 (phantom verse) 20 Then Jesus strictly charged His disciples to tell no one that he was the rock.

---

pablope mentioned:

Those who assert it was Peter’s faith are making the argument to justify their denial of Peter as the rock himself. One cannot separate Peter and his faith.

josephback responded:

I’m taking Koine Greek this fall and I’m planning to ask the professor about this on a grammatical level.

Taking koine Greek or Bible Greek, may not be as much help here, as one might think josephback. Why?

Because there are native Greek speaking Fathers that matter-of-factly affirm Peter as the Rock.

But even more, consider the text itself . . . .

MATTHEW 16:18 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church . . . .

Recall although most of the New Testament was originally written in Greek, it is almost certain St. Matthews Gospel was originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic.

So the text with the salient transliterations would NOT read . . . .

MATTHEW 16:18 (with Greek transliteration of Rock) 18 And I tell you, you are Petros, and on this Petra I will build my church . . . .

But would be more likely . . . .

MATTHEW 16:18 (with Aramaic to Greek transliteration of Rock) 18 And I tell you, you are Cephas, and on this Cephas I will build my church . . . .

But this one is the most likely (what Jesus likely actually said based upon the original Aramaic in the text) . . . .

**
MATTHEW 16:18 (with Aramaic transliteration of Rock)** 18 And I tell you, you are Kepha, and on this Kepha I will build my church . . . .

**There is no petros/petra issue. **

The petros/petra issue is an invented objection to usurp authority based on a word that has gender ending that necessitated an “os” finish (Petros) to Peter’s name instead of an “a” finish (Petra).

You can’t call Jesus the “Christa” . . . and likewise . . .
You can’t call Peter the “Petra”.

---

This below from our local area men’s Catholic Bible study on the historical evidence for Matthew originally being written in Aramaic . . . . .

---

The Ancient Church Fathers on St. Matthew’s Original Gospel Text

Scholars agree that most of the New Testament was written in Greek originally. Matthew’s Gospel is the exception though.

St. Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in a Hebrew language variant called Aramaic.

This is the language that Jesus and His Apostles would have spoken from day to day commonly. Let’s look at some ancient Church Fathers writings to get more insight into this issue.

We will see that St. Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in Hebrew and not the new-fangled tradition of an original Greek composition as the petros/petra proponents have tried to invent.

St. Hippolytus of Rome, writing in the 200’s A.D., tells us St. Matthew died in the town of Parthia, but also tells us what the original language of St. Matthew’s gospel was. Let’s read on and find out. . . .

***Continued . . . . ***

 

[guanophore]

That’s a very Hegelian view of the papacy and history.

I think not. There never has been any dialectic involved.

 

[guanophore]

He gave them authority, but I don’t know that the apostles had the same authority that Jesus had. I think Jesus remained in authority over them. Maybe I am just reading your comment wrong.

Of course Jesus remained in authority over them. He sent them with His authority:

7When they saw Him, they worshiped Him, but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit Matt 28:18

In hermeneutics I was taught “whenever you see a therefore, look and see what it is there for”. It is a conditional statement based upon the prior premise. He sends the Apostles with authority because it was given to Him.

6Whoever listens to you listens to Me; whoever rejects you rejects Me; and whoever rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.” 17The seventy-two returned with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in Your name.” Luke 10:17

When He told them to ask in His name, He meant the authority.

The Apostles passed this authority to the Bishops:

15 Speak these things as you encourage and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you.Titus 2:15

Which is reinforced through historical documents as well.

The term pope and papacy did not exist yet. But mainly, the quote from Tertullian stated that Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the powers to bind and loose to Peter and no one else could ever have these. He attributes the keys to unbarring the entrance to the heavenly kingdom when he spoke to the crowds at Pentecost, “in which (kingdom) are loosed the sins that were beforetime bound; and those which have not been loosed are bound.” He then describes the encounter with Ananias and his vision from the Holy Spirit allowing uncircumcised to become Christians. “This sentence both loosed those parts of the law which were abandoned, and bound those which were reserved.” Tertullian thought that was the use of the keys and binding and loosing and they were for Peter alone (not passed down the generations.) So, I do feel that this is not saying the same thing with a different set of terminology, but a completely different concept.

A possibly relevant question might be, if Jesus did intend His authority to be used by the Apostles, and then their successors the Bishops (valid to this day) how might that change your life?

 

[Cathoholic]

From our men’s Bible study with minor syntax and emphasis changes

*Continued from last post (with minor overlap to help the flow) . . .
*

St. Hippolytus of Rome, writing in the 200’s A.D., tells us St. Matthew died in the town of Parthia, but also tells us what the original language of St. Matthew’s gospel was.

Let’s read on and find out. . . .

St. Hippolytus of Rome . . . . Peter preached the Gospel in Pontus, and Galatia, and Cappadocia, and Betania, and Italy, and Asia, and was afterwards crucified by Nero in Rome with his head downward, as he had himself desired to suffer in that manner. Andrew preached to the Scythians and Thracians, and was crucified, suspended on an olive tree, at Patrae, a town of Achaia; and there too he was buried. John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan’s time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where his remains were sought for, but could not be found. James, his brother, when preaching in Judea, was cut off with the sword by Herod the tetrarch, and was buried there. Philip preached in Phrygia, and was crucified in Hierapolis with his head downward in the time of Domitian, and was buried there. Bartholomew, again, preached to the Indians, to whom he also gave the Gospel according to Matthew, and was crucified with his head downward, and was buried in Allanum, a town of the great Armenia.
And Matthew wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew tongue, and published it at Jerusalem, and fell asleep at Hierees, a town of Parthia. . . .
— St. Hippolytus of Rome

St. Hippolytus of Rome Died in 235 A.D. Again very ancient writings!

Let’s listen to Origen writing on this topic in the 200’s A.D. . . .

Origen . . . . Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first; and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism. The second written was that according to Mark, who wrote it according to the instruction of Peter, who, in his General Epistle, acknowledged him as a son, saying, “The church that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son.” And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles. Last of all, that according to John.
— Origen. “The Unity and Harmony of Scripture; Second Book.”

Origen Died in 253 A.D. These are ancient writings.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem is appealing here to unbelieving Hebrews . . .

St. Cyril of Jerusalem . . . “They were Hebrews who wrote that history; so were all the Apostles Hebrews: why then do ye disbelieve the Jews? Matthew who wrote the Gospel wrote it in the Hebrew tongue; and Paul the preacher was a Hebrew of the Hebrews; and the twelve Apostles were all of Hebrew race: then fifteen Bishops of Jerusalem were appointed in succession from among the Hebrews. What then is your reason for allowing your own accounts, and rejecting ours, though these also are written by Hebrews from among yourselves.” . . .
—St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures #14

St. Cyril of Jerusalem Died in 386 A.D.

St. Papias of Hierapolis—Consider the early Church historian Eusebius writing in the 300’s and quoting Bishop and Saint Papias of Hierapolis (Papias’ writings are no longer available except in quotes from other ancient Church Fathers and fragments).

**Papias wrote in the about 120 A.D. **

St. Irenaeus called **Papias “a hearer of John **and a companion to Polycarp, a man of old time.” Polycarp himself incidentally, was ordained by the beloved disciple John. What did Papias himself think was the original language of St. Matthew’s Gospel? Let’s find out . . .

St. Papias of Hierapolis . . . “So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one of them interpreted them as he was able.” And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has already been stated . . . .
—St. Papias of Hierapolis; writing in approximately 120 A.D.!

(Ancient Historian Eusebius of Caesarea quoting St. Papias in Eusebius’ “Church History,” Book III, Chapter XXXIX “The Writings of Papias.”)

Eusebius himself died in 341 A.D.

Listen now to St. Jerome.

St. Jerome . . . Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. . . . .
— St. Jerome. “The Lives of Illustrious Men. Chapter 3.”

St. Jerome Died in 420 A.D.​

Continued . . . .

 

[guanophore]

Btw bro, please tell me that troll pic and Religion is temporary!!! :ehh:

I sure hope so! One of my favorite debate partners has decided I am a Catholic, Fundamentalist Troll, so I am wearing it in respect.

 

[Cathoholic]

And finally . . . .

There is NOT ONE ancient Church Father that asserts St. Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in Greek!

There are no ancient manuscripts that suggest this either.

What difference does it make if the original transcripts were originally in Hebrew instead of Greek?

How does this fact cancel out any claims on the petros/petra argument we’ve already seen put forth?

It makes a big difference and completely negates the petros/petra argument. Why?

Because in Aramaic there is only ONE WORD for “rock”—“kepha”.

There is only ONE WORD for rock in Aramaic so there wouldn’t be any distinction the first time Jesus names Peter rock and the second time when Jesus describes Peter’s function.

They would both necessarily be the same words used by Jesus and written by St. Matthew.

People often ignore or distort the context of Matthew 16:18 to come up with the invention that Simon is not the “Rock” that Jesus refers to here. Ironically, they base this distortion on occasional ancient non-Biblical Greek literature use of petros . . . .

 

[YADA]

…
He gave them authority, but I don’t know that the apostles had the same authority that Jesus had. I think Jesus remained in authority over them. Maybe I am just reading your comment wrong.

The term pope and papacy did not exist yet. But mainly, the quote from Tertullian stated that Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the powers to bind and loose to Peter and no one else could ever have these. He attributes the keys to unbarring the entrance to the heavenly kingdom when he spoke to the crowds at Pentecost, “in which (kingdom) are loosed the sins that were beforetime bound; and those which have not been loosed are bound.” He then describes the encounter with Ananias and his vision from the Holy Spirit allowing uncircumcised to become Christians. “This sentence both loosed those parts of the law which were abandoned, and bound those which were reserved.” Tertullian thought that was the use of the keys and binding and loosing and they were for Peter alone (not passed down the generations.) So, I do feel that this is not saying the same thing with a different set of terminology, but a completely different concept.

In Isaiah - we have the Prime Minister of the King and evil Prime Minster being replaced by a new one - the King is the successor of David … Thus we have the successor of the throne in the Davidic Kingdom and the successor Prime Minister … Is Jesus the perfection of the Davidic line - the Kingdom of David that God promised? **Yes! … **Jesus is the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords - the perfection of the promise made to David …

How is the Prime Minister of the Davidic Kingdom called and known by the people? They call him Abba, Father … you say the term papacy and Pope were not in existence - but Pope merely is a transliteration of papa … While it has come to refer to the successor of Peter - it still means father …

What are we told about this Prime Minister? We know that he holds the key to the Kingdom. Does this mean the King had relinquished his own authority? No - the king authorizes the holder of the ‘key’ to act in his absence … he allows the Prime Minister to lock or close what no one other individual has the authority to or may lock or close … and to open what what no one other individual has the authority to or may open.

While all the apostles we given the authority to forgive and bind sins - only Peter was given the power to open and shut the gates of Heaven … Peter is given a two fold authority - the apostles only one.

This followed by Peter being given the command to strengthen his brethren and later the command to feed and tend to the people of God [the lambs] and the leadership of the church [the sheep] in his threefold Do you love me to counter the threefold denial.

Clearly Peter had a unique commandment - and if the apostles and disciples who walked the earth with Jesus and witnessed his miracles and healings and who heard his teachings in person -the very people who encountered the risen Jesus, who a had the opportunity of touching his wounded hands and side after the resurrection needed leadership in Peter - how much more so do we some 2000 years later need leadership?

 

[Darryl_B]

Except my own religious denomination isn’t part of the discussion or even the topic of the thread. Keep it up try-hard.

Each to their own I suppose.

 

[susanlo]

In Isaiah - we have the Prime Minister of the King and evil Prime Minster being replaced by a new one - the King is the successor of David … Thus we have the successor of the throne in the Davidic Kingdom and the successor Prime Minister … Is Jesus the perfection of the Davidic line - the Kingdom of David that God promised? **Yes! … **Jesus is the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords - the perfection of the promise made to David …

How is the Prime Minister of the Davidic Kingdom called and known by the people? They call him Abba, Father … you say the term papacy and Pope were not in existence - but Pope merely is a transliteration of papa … While it has come to refer to the successor of Peter - it still means father …

What are we told about this Prime Minister? We know that he holds the key to the Kingdom. Does this mean the King had relinquished his own authority? No - the king authorizes the holder of the ‘key’ to act in his absence … he allows the Prime Minister to lock or close what no one other individual has the authority to or may lock or close … and to open what what no one other individual has the authority to or may open.

While all the apostles we given the authority to forgive and bind sins - only Peter was given the power to open and shut the gates of Heaven … Peter is given a two fold authority - the apostles only one.

This followed by Peter being given the command to strengthen his brethren and later the command to feed and tend to the people of God [the lambs] and the leadership of the church [the sheep] in his threefold Do you love me to counter the threefold denial.

Clearly Peter had a unique commandment - and if the apostles and disciples who walked the earth with Jesus and witnessed his miracles and healings and who heard his teachings in person -the very people who encountered the risen Jesus, who a had the opportunity of touching his wounded hands and side after the resurrection needed leadership in Peter - how much more so do we some 2000 years later need leadership?

In Isaiah 22:22 we see a key to be given to the Prime Minister who will have authority under David. 22 I 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. This key is in the possession of Jesus at the time of John’s Revelation 3:7 “*To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write:
These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. *
So this authority and the role of Prime Minister isn’t given to anyone else besides Jesus in the new kingdom.

What is the significance of Peter’s keys? I am not sure. I have seen many different ideas on their meaning.

Certainly Peter stood out and did remarkable things in Acts. But, did the other apostles call Peter “Abba” or “Papa?” Did Peter lead and direct the other apostles? Did the theologians in the early centuries express a clear understanding of a special role that was passed from one Bishop of Rome to another?