JW dispute unbroken line of papal succession

[adf417]

It was all the way back in post #34.

You aren’t really reading any of the posts are you? You would have noticed my post if you really were.

And the reminder on post #60 of your post #34.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

And he didn’t answer any of my points either on the other thread.

I’ve given him an hour to translate two sentences into and from Koine Greek (which also includes an easy puzzle of sorts that he will see “between the lines” and talk about if he is as educated as he claims). He logged out of CAF after I posted it however without responding.

Ah, well.

 

[SteveVH]

And he didn’t answer any of my points either on the other thread.

I’ve given him an hour to translate two sentences into and from Koine Greek (which also includes an easy puzzle of sorts that he will see “between the lines” and talk about if he is as educated as he claims). He logged out of CAF after I posted it however without responding.

Ah, well.

I am shocked and dismayed.

 

[KathleenGee]

I can see that this former Catholic is dealing with issues deep in the heart…that lead him to compromised anti-Catholic material.

The recesses of the heart…isn’t that what Christ directed ourselves to?

We have to get down deep within ourselves to really define the issues we are struggling with.

I think sometimes the Church ends up being in some kind of psychological institution that people project onto, transference issues…and this can be most complicated at times. This thread is a good example of how difficult it is as well with our mindsets and how we justify them.

 

[Augustine3]

Forgive me but I don’t see the significance of this thread. What’s the big deal if the succession of popes has been broken? That doesn’t undermine apostolic succession in the slightest and hence the Catholic Church. A pope is already an existing bishop before being elected as the bishop of Rome. History has shown there was once three popes elected during the same reign. Did that damage the Church? Nope. In fact pope John XXIII chose his name to demonstrate the continuation of the papal succession, despite the ugly history.

Any comments regarding this post? Sorry I just wanted to know what the fuss was all about

 

[Mystophilus]

attempting a civil and reasonable exchange with Jehovah’s Witnesses is not only fruitless but seemingly impossible.

I am afraid that I have had a few discussions, on this and other sites, which have seen the very same behaviours which you describe here from people who identify with other faith groups, including both Catholics and Anglicans. I would not on that basis say that civil and reasonable exchanges with Catholics and with Anglicans are fruitless and impossible, howsoever I might suspect it of being the case for certain individuals.

What I can most definitely say is that you have reminded me of how I should behave, and for that I thank you.

 

[adrift]

Reply,

Mere word play!

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words

“<1,4073,petra>
denotes “a mass of rock,” as distinct from petros, “a detached stone or boulder,” or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved. For the nature of petra, see Matt. 7:24,25; 27:51,60; Mark 15:46; Luke 6:48 (twice), a type of a sure foundation (here the true reading is as in the RV, “because it had been well builded”); Rev. 6:15,16 (cp. Isa. 2:19,ff.; Hos. 10:8); Luke 8:6,13, used illustratively; 1 Cor. 10:4 (twice), figuratively, of Christ; in Rom. 9:33; 1 Pet. 2:8, metaphorically, of Christ; in Matt. 16:18, metaphorically, of Christ and the testimony concerning Him; here the distinction between petra, concerning the Lord Himself, and Petros, the Apostle, is clear.”

Vine is blinded by his own preconceived religious beliefs. According to Strongs 4074 Petros {pet’-ros} apparently a primary word; TDNT - 6:100,835; n pr m 1) one of the twelve disciples of Jesus
In research I did some years ago, I could find no instance of there being a word petros. Which makes sense Strongs indicates it is a primary word.

There is something else however and that is John

42 He brought him unto Jesus. Jesus looked upon him, and said, Thou art Simon the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation, Peter).

His name is Cephas which is Aramaic for rock no word play.
The problem with the interpretation you present Is
1 The usage does not support that Jesus says I change your name to rock and then in midsentence change what rock means.
2. A change of name is important only three other people in Scripture had their name changed and it was always monumental.
3. The change of name is accompanied by the Keys of heaven.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

Dear friend,

In my mind it would not matter if there is no direct known links from Pope to Pope back to St Peter. Much of history is missing. We have scripture which is public revelation, to be held by all. We have the Holy Spirit of Christ present in the Church, speaking through her. We have private revelations from our best and fairest, many Saints who were mystics and visionaries, who confirm the standing of the Church and Papacy.

It is highly unlikely that Apostolic succession ceased. This is what is needed to elect a head, a Pope. The Bishops are the successors of the Apostles, Princes of the Church, and they have decided to elect a College of Cardinals, to elect the new Pope as and when needed. It is highly unlikely God would allow the Church to fall into such error as to not have A Pope it must have.

If things go wrong like the 20th century to now, that does not mean Apostolic succession, or the Popes are wrong or invalid. We heard late 1800’s Pope Leo XIII overhead a talk between God and satan, in which satan asked God if he could have the 20th century to see if he could destroy the Church. God said Yes. And the century was an ever increasing disaster for the whole Church and world. WWI, WW2 the rise of the Soviet empire and cold war, as our Lady of Fatima told us in 1917, God is already too much offended, if men do not cease offending God you will be punished with another greater war, WW2 as WW1 was the current punishment, Russia will rise and spread its errors throughout the world. Nation will rise against nation, and whole nations will be annihilated.

We saw numerous other wars, pestilences, famines, natural disasters and calamities, the world has become very sick, the Church h is being destroyed by the powers of darkness. A major secularization, apostasy, and martyrdoms galore. But satan did not defeat the church, having been given that 100 yrs.

But his progress was so great; if we don’t fight back he still may succeed. I think we still need the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, before Russia is finally converted and we get a period of peace (I think possibly world peace). Even Pope Francis prayed this consecration recently. I think all the Bishops must join him, and it must be done correctly.

In the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph, the Pope and Bishops will consecrate correctly, Russia will convert and the world will experience a period of peace, were more or less yours and mine Blessed Mother Mary’s words.

We are still to see a few things happen I think. I pray the Church gets back on her feet after 100 years of satan being allowed to try and destroy Her. I pray Pope Francis will continue to rebuild Gods Church, like his namesake and patron St Francis of Assisi did.

The pedophilia, molestations, all the explosion of scandals, the Church seeming to throw out all including the kitchen sink, and change so much many wonder if She is still Catholic, is all the work of the devil, and his lot. They had 100 years, let’s fight back now. It is never too late.

Hope this helps. I could be right, wrong or a mixture. Most of this is my personal opinion dear friends.

Adios…

Blessings & Peace +++

 

[Mystophilus]

Reply,

Mere word play![q/uote]
No. Native-user usage of the language is not “mere word play”. It is the basis of all accurate linguistic analysis.

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words

 

[Mystophilus]

The only reason that in Greek the first KEPHA in reference to Simon is masculine is because, if you know Koine Greek, the word for an actual “rock” is in the feminine gender.

Πετρα is feminine; others such as πετρος, λιθος, and παγος are all masculine.

Because Simon was a man, he could not be called “Petra” in Koine Greek as that would violate the rules of Greek grammar. Greek is an inflectional language, and this called for the word for rock “petra” to be masculine in the case of a male: “petros.”

Sorry, but πετρα and πετρος are different words: the one is not merely the gender-switched version of the other. Gender-switching happened via attributives (including articles, like “the”), and we do have a couple of examples of πετρος as a feminine.

We also see examples, in places like 1 Co 1:30 and Ps 15:5 (LXX) of feminine nouns being used for typically-male figures. Greek gender is primarily grammatical, and thus quite flexible.

I understand how attractive the Aramaic Matthew argument is, particularly for Catholics, but it is unprovable, and we cannot be absolutely certain of what someone would have said in a text which we do not have. That said, it is also unnecessary: while not identical, πετρα and πετρος are closely related, and so the claim about Peter being excluded from the second half of Mt 16:18 is just plain daft.

 

[Mystophilus]

In research I did some years ago, I could find no instance of there being a word petros. Which makes sense Strongs indicates it is a primary word.

Sorry, but πετρος is in Homer, and appears repeatedly throughout Greek literature, both before and after Matthew.

There is something else however and that is John

1:42 He brought him unto Jesus. Jesus looked upon him, and said, Thou art Simon the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation, Peter).

His name is Cephas which is Aramaic for rock no word play.

While it is true that there is no word play in Jn 1:42, there is such in Mt 16:18, although that word play most definitely does show the connection between the two, and was read as such by early Greek Fathers.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Πετρα is feminine; others such as πετρος, λιθος, and παγος are all masculine.

Sorry, but πετρα and πετρος are different words: the one is not merely the gender-switched version of the other. Gender-switching happened via attributives (including articles, like “the”), and we do have a couple of examples of πετρος as a feminine.

We also see examples, in places like 1 Co 1:30 and Ps 15:5 (LXX) of feminine nouns being used for typically-male figures. Greek gender is primarily grammatical, and thus quite flexible.

I understand how attractive the Aramaic Matthew argument is, particularly for Catholics, but it is unprovable, and we cannot be absolutely certain of what someone would have said in a text which we do not have. That said, it is also unnecessary: while not identical, πετρα and πετρος are closely related, and so the claim about Peter being excluded from the second half of Mt 16:18 is just plain daft.

I am aware of the differences you mention in Koine Greek and the argument that “petra” can mean something slightly different from “petros.” I was not arguing that point or your particular convictions regarding them. I was addressing the point at hand from one of Jehovah’s Witnesses who was making a mess out of his presentation of the Greek.

Also I was not speaking from the point of view of the Greek language being the original language but the target. Aramaic came first.

In Koine Greek two words are used for the one in Aramaic, KEPHA. That was my point.

“Petra” is actually a woman’s name even to this day. It’s male counterpart is “Peter” and not something else or something slightly different. Those who study the etymology of names state that “Petra” is merely the feminine version of “Petros” and that both mean the same thing “rock.”

As to what someone said in a “text” we don’t have, I don’t know if that is an argument that could logically stand test (but I am always willing to test things out). Since Papias claims that Matthew wrote his gospel as a collection of sayings or oracles, originally penned in Hebrew/Aramaic, one cannot make arguments that the original languages can be totally ignored or have no bearing on what the Greek text means. Whether it was from this Matthew oracles source or a so-called “Q” that some believe in, scholars agree that somewhere along the line the transmission began from the Hebrew and Aramaic.

My argument was merely that Catholicism predates the religious paradigm of “doctrine-from-Scripture” that the JWs exist in, because the faith of the Christian Church and its doctrines come from a source earlier than the finished Greek text of Matthew. Regardless of what the canonized Greek says, the words my ancestors heard when they first accepted the Gospel was an Aramaic version(my Hebrew family line on my father’s side is descended from 1st century-pre Gentile Christians).

We’ve been Judeo-Catholics for some 2000 years–even through the years that we were persecuted by our own Church during the Spanish Inquisition. We are still Catholics, but our faith in Christ began before there was a written text that said “petros” or “petra.”

Before there was a written text there was just one word: KEPHA.

If you believe God has called you to embrace a different understanding I am not one to argue with God. You have my total blessing to believe as you do and I will not attempt to convince you otherwise.

I was only stating the above in a more condensed form to Andrew and it has nothing to do with wanting to claim that my beliefs in my Lord and my Church have anything to do with you believing that differently and that my faith is thus based on something incorrect.

 

[KathleenGee]

Great affirmation of faith in these posts…reflecting the Holy Spirit Who was with the Church and incarnated it on Pentecost.

We are not based on man and man’s interpretation but on the Lord working through the Holy Spirit down through the ages, and always the same Christ and the same though of different charisms.

 

[adrift]

Sorry, but πετρος is in Homer, and appears repeatedly throughout Greek literature, both before and after Matthew.

My research obviously was incomplete. However, the translation was what? A little pebble? or was it stone rock?

While it is true that there is no word play in Jn 1:42, there is such in Mt 16:18, although that word play most definitely does show the connection between the two, and was read as such by early Greek Fathers.

Word play yes but as I pointed out and you seem to agree with when Jesus says that He was going to build His Church on this Rock after naming Peter Rock is strange. Those who propose that it means only the faith of Peter never explain the name change nor do they address the giving of the keys. Although I have heard them say that it was to all the Apostles but then don’t address that Jesus spoke here only to Peter.

It is unlikely that Jesus and the apostles spoke together in Greek it is more likely that Jesus used the name Cephas.

 

[KathleenGee]

But we don’t end with words…we end in communication of thought and of life.

Jesus made His Church … Ecclesial…Ecclesial Deist…meaning Christ chose to work through His apostles…who could not understand much of anything after even His resurrection, until He appeared to them…and broke bread.

It is the Eucharist that gives words their meaning. Peter, the rock…simply represents Christ the Rock. Peter, the most fallible and impetuous of the apostles, is the one Christ chose…He could have chosen atleast John or James…

 

[Mystophilus]

I was only stating the above in a more condensed form to Andrew and it has nothing to do with wanting to claim that my beliefs in my Lord and my Church have anything to do with you believing that differently and that my faith is thus based on something incorrect.

Sorry!

I was not meaning to step on any toes there, merely to point out what the Greek says and how it works.

 

[Mystophilus]

My research obviously was incomplete. However, the translation was what? A little pebble? or was it stone rock?

It is a separate piece of stone, but not generally a small one: in Iliad 20.288, it is used for a boulder too large for two ordinary mortals to even lift. That is no pebble. The distinction from πετρα is much more subtle than anti-Catholics want it to be, but there is a distinction.

Word play yes but as I pointed out and you seem to agree with when Jesus says that He was going to build His Church on this Rock after naming Peter Rock is strange. Those who propose that it means only the faith of Peter never explain the name change nor do they address the giving of the keys. Although I have heard them say that it was to all the Apostles but then don’t address that Jesus spoke here only to Peter.

The problem with saying that it is only the faith of Peter is that doing that ignores the relationship between πετρα and πετρος. The problem with saying that it is only Peter is that doing that ignores the distinction between πετρα and πετρος.

There is currently a version of Lampe’s magnificent Patristic Greek Lexicon online here. On p.1079, under πετρα, is a list of early Church readings of the latter term in that interplay (i.e. upon what Christ was to build), including Peter’s profession, believers’ faith generally, the truth as maintained by the Church, all disciples of Christ (following St. Peter’s model), and Peter himself. These readings should not be read as being exclusive of one another, either, and they (and the Greek) do make a good argument for Petrine primacy.

It is unlikely that Jesus and the apostles spoke together in Greek it is more likely that Jesus used the name Cephas.

Quite probably for the first part of Mt 16:18, but knowing whether the word-play was there in Aramaic in the second part is the challenge, since we do not have that text. Greek had about ten different words for stone; Biblical Hebrew, whence Aramaic came, also had about ten (according to my concordance - I can’t read Hebrew). That makes it very hard to claim that it was impossible for Aramaic to have used any other word in the second half of Mt 16:18, which makes it very hard to claim that the word in the Aramaic text which we do not have necessarily was Kephas (and thus that the word play in the Greek did not exist in the Aramaic).

 

[adrift]

Quite probably for the first part of Mt 16:18, but knowing whether the word-play was there in Aramaic in the second part is the challenge, since we do not have that text. Greek had about ten different words for stone; Biblical Hebrew, whence Aramaic came, also had about ten (according to my concordance - I can’t read Hebrew). That makes it very hard to claim that it was impossible for Aramaic to have used any other word in the second half of Mt 16:18, which makes it very hard to claim that the word in the Aramaic text which we do not have necessarily was Kephas (and thus that the word play in the Greek did not exist in the Aramaic).

I want to first thank you for your patience in explaining.
If I am understanding you, you say that is not possible to know if Cephas was used in both places.
So that you are Cephas and upon this_________ another word meaning rock might have been used? I am understanding it right?

 

[adrift]

But as for papal succession, I understand that depends on the apostle Peter being the first Pope, the first bishop of Rome and head of the early church. (Am I wrong yet?)

Peter was who Jesus chose to be the head of His Church

Certainly Jesus singled out the apostles as special in the early church. Peter was given the “keys of the kingdom”. He was an outspoken fellow who often appears in the gospels as the spokesman for the apostles, and is included with James and John in several special occasions. (The transfiguration for example)

But was he Pope? Of course the word “Pope” is not in the Bible.

No the word pope is not in the Bible. Pope is a word that means Father. Paul calls himself father 1Corinthians 4:15 Was Peter the leader of the Apostles. Yes the evidence is overwelming

When the council of Jerusalem met to discuss the circumcision issue, (Acts 15) Peter was present and spoke, but it seems James the brother of Jesus (which won’t suit the “Mary ever virgin” camp)

Not the subject of this thread so I won’t go into why you misunderstand brother but please do a search and you will find many threads on what brother really means.

had the final word and specified what the necessary taboos for Christians included (“abstain form blood” being one which is still insisted on by one disliked group I know of).

Did he or was it Peter who settled it?

So was Peter Pope then? (surely not Bishop of Rome yet at any rate)

Peter became leader when Jesus told him to feed His sheep.

Although Peter was given great responsibility, nowhere in the Bible do we find him claiming to be the head of the congregation and, as such, making decisions for the disciples as a group. In his letter, he called himself “an apostle” and “an older man”—nothing more. 1 Peter 1:1; 5:1. Why not “Pope” ? :

Silly you he didn’t need to proclaim himself leader, Jesus had already done that. Jesus had already said that he would have the keys which means he had authority.

Is it necessary that Peter moved to Rome for him to be Pope. (correct me if Pope and Bishop of Rome is not the same thing) because…

The correction you need is that where ever Peter was he was head. Peter wasn’t pope because he was bishop of Rome but Rome is the home of the Pope because Peter was there

When Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, he included an extensive list of Christians there. Yet, he did not mention Peter at all. (Romans 16:1-23) Why not? Presumably because Peter was not there.

Absence of proof is not proof.

About 30 years after Paul wrote his letters, the apostle John wrote three letters and the book of Revelation. Nowhere in these writings did John mention that the congregation in Rome was the most prominent one, nor did he refer to a leader of the church who held the supreme office of a successor of Peter.

So

Infact about 62 AD Peter signs off his first inspired letter from “Babylon” (1 Peter 5:13) thousands of miles from Rome!

Babylon was code for Rome you thought it was Babylon

So is the only proof Peter was the Pope (in the Bible) Jesus words at Matthew 16:18 where he says in reply to Peter: “and you are Peter, and on this rock I shall build my church.”?

Nope read the links.

Because the conversation there was about Jesus identity, not Peter’s. (Verse 13) Peter had answered “you are the Christ, the son of the living God” (Which won’t suit the Trinity promoters)

Really? Than you have no idea about the Trinity.

Are you certain Jesus was referring to Peter as the rock on which the church was built, and not himself here?

Lets see
You are rock and upon this rock yep pretty clear that Jesus was speaking of Peter who He renamed. Only happened three other times in the Bible.
Let us take a made up sentence
I have a cat and a dog who is black. The closest noun to black is the dog so you know that it is the dog that is black the same thing holds true for Peter and the rock. It is not reasonable to say that Jesus was speaking of Himself

Others in this thread have already admitted the Catholic Church agrees Jesus is the “main cornerstone” on which the church was built. Jesus is called the “head of the congregation” at Ephesians 1:22, (made so by “God who seated himself at his right hand,” which again won’t suit the Trinity camp)

So? Ephesians 2:20 20 being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone again you have no idea about the Trinity. Maybe that is why you believe that it won’t suit the Trinity camp a remark that you make to often.

Please try to answer with facts and reason instead of personal anti JW attacks.

Why do you make the assumption that fact and reason wouldn’t be used? I would also suggest to you to stop your attack which the remarks of won’t suit the Trinity camp is.

 

[Mystophilus]

I want to first thank you for your patience in explaining.

Hey, I’m just glad that some of the odds and ends which I study are proving useful!

If I am understanding you, you say that is not possible to know if Cephas was used in both places.
So that you are Cephas and upon this_________ another word meaning rock might have been used? I am understanding it right?

Indeed, another word for “rock”, or another word for something upon which you could build, or perhaps a pun which worked in a different way, since those often translate poorly. It is all guesswork, of course, without that text.

I have to admit that, if we did find the Aramaic Matthew and it had the same word twice, I would be as disappointed as if it had two unrelated words for “rock”: the word-play in Greek has more depth than either of those.