Matthew 16 question

[malachi_a_serva]

We all have heard Protestants say "Any honest Greek authority can tell you that Our Lord did NOT call Peter a ‘rock’ and tell him that on him the church was founded. What He said was: “Thou art Peter (a small stone) and on this rock (petra)-the rock of which thou art an isolated fragment (or rock of truth which thou hast confessed) I will build My church.”

This "Comment" could be dismissed with the indisputable declaration that  "Jesus Christ and His disciples spoke Aramaic"(Wold Book Encyclopedia 1999). The Semitic language that the Encyclopedia of Jewish Knowledge says was "akin to Hebrew, (and) became the common tongue about the year 300 b.c.e." (before the common era, the A.D. era). The Aramaic word for rock is "Cephas," without any change of gender, such as in the Greek; where thou art "Petros" is masculine, and "Petra" feminine, in the translation of Matt. 16:18-19 from Aramaic into Greek.

If you Prophetics will study St. John 1:42 in an unbiased manner, you will see that Simon was called "Cephas," the rock, by Christ in Ceasarea Philippi two years before He announced, as recorded in Matt. 16:18, that Peter was to be the head of the Church Christ built. Your stale Protestant endeavor to make Peter "an isolated fragment of stone," is a denial of St. Paul's concept, who called Peter "Cephas," the rock, on four occasions, as recorded in 1 Corinthians 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; and 15:5

Hi there, I have not yet read this whole thread - so hopefully I am not repeating something that has already been clarified.

But,

Couldn’t Jesus have spoken Greek as well? Is there any proof that he did not? Did he not use the Septuagint? If so than he could read Greek and therefore be assumed to be able to speak Greek. Just asking as I am in no way knowledgeable of the facts in this - just asking.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Hi there, I have not yet read this whole thread - so hopefully I am not repeating something that has already been clarified.

But,

Couldn’t Jesus have spoken Greek as well? Is there any proof that he did not? Did he not use the Septuagint? If so than he could read Greek and therefore be assumed to be able to speak Greek. Just asking as I am in no way knowledgeable of the facts in this - just asking.

Jesus could spoke Greek if he wanted to. Though, he fully spoke Aramaic and mainstream Hebrew in his days.

He did used the Septuagint.

Mark 7:6-8 – Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13 from the Septuagint – “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.”

Matt. 9:13; 12:7 / Hosea 6:6 - I desire “mercy” and not sacrifice. Hebrew - I desire “goodness” and not sacrifice.

Matt. 13:15 / Isaiah 6:10 - heart grown dull; eyes have closed; to heal. Hebrew - heart is fat; ears are heavy; eyes are shut; be healed.

Matt… 7:12 - Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 - the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

 

[runandsew]

John 1:42
He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).

Thought the KJV says that Cephas means “stone” instead of “Peter”, I feel that is a biased interpretation since the KJV translates the word stone from the Greek word ‘Lithos’ in every other instance.
But still this would show that Jesus was speaking aramaic when He changed Simon’s name to Peter.

Also you have to keep in mind of the location of where this took place, it was caesarea philippi.
This was a place where there was a huge rock cliff, and there had been a pagan temple. Jesus would have been playing off of the natural surroundings when he used the two forms of rock.

Here is a site about caesarea philippi.

 

[runandsew]

Also keep in mind that Paul refers to Peter as ‘Kephas’.
This would show that when Jesus was changing Simon’s name, it was to the Aramaic word Cephas, which is the word rock.

Though the idea that Peter was only a stone is possible, it is not probable. The Bible shows this to be true. One must not take one passage out of context with the rest of the Bible, or it will lead you to erroneous interpretations.

 

[mercygate]

I think in the debate on Matthew 16 whether “this rock” is Peter or Christ, the important question is not asked nor answered.

Was Jesus in this passage establishing some type of ecclesiastical hierarchy for his church where Peter sits at the top of the organizational chart (underneath Christ of course)?

Why or why not?

I am quite aware that Catholics believe this is exactly what Christ was doing.

Infallibility is not the issue; the only issue is whether Christ intended His church to be centralized or not.

Of course we think he meant it. Otherwise he would not have said it.

Jesus is THE Rock, and Peter is “this rock,” upon whom Jesus promises to build his Church (not my Church, or your Church, or the First Church of the Holy Retribuition in Peoria: HIS Church. In other words, any Church that has the name of Jesus on it – “my church” – must include the Apostles, of whom Peter is “first” (Mt. 10:2) – not first called, of course because Andrew was the first called, but by position. For us as Catholics, the important point is the apostolic foundation, of which Peter is the centerpiece by Our Lord’s own appointment.

See post #2 of this thread. That thread gets cranky in a couple of places (not MY posts, of course ).

I see a couple of people have launched the Petros/Petra rant on this thread. Check this out. Even Protestants don’t buy that.

 

[seek]

Would Jesus speak Greek? Well, I guess he would if the
people he spoke to understood Greek.** This** to me makes it unlikely
that HE spoke Greek. The Apostles may have received the ability to be
fluent in other languages at Pentecost but that was a ways a way.

          In the *WORD* there frequently exists foreshadowing.  Some of

the most obvious, are Abraham offering Isaac as a Sacrifice,
followed in the New testament by of course God offering his only Son
as a sacrifice. The Passover, allowing the Angel of Death to Passover
because of the mark of the Lamb’s blood saving the 1st born son,escaping
slavery. eating Manna from Heaven. Christ’s blood saving us from the
wages of sin–death. Escaping the slavery of sin. Eating the body and
blood of Christ sustaining us in our individual and communal exodus from
sin. The imagery, the reality of Christ as the Lamb of God is then topped
off in Revelation where he is referenced as the Lamb 28 times.

          There are others of course.  Jonah in the whale for three days.

Christ’s entombent for three days. The priest /king Melchizedek offering
bread and wine as sacrifice. I’m sure you get the idea.

           So what does this have to do with the establishment of

Christ’s Church. I believe, maybe it’s a hunch, maybe the Holy Spirit
stirring, that the hierarchy that Christ established was followed out
(following up on what was foreshadowed in his relationship w/his 12)
after Christ ascended. Peter then rose above the 12 which made the 12
11. But then dear Saul/Paul appeared to replace Simon/Cephas.

           So you have the continuance of a specific hierarchy

foreshadowed with Christ’s relationship to the 12, then Peter’s
relationship to the 12. The twelve became thousands. And of course
the 1 remained above the thousands. Christ breathed on them to
bind and loose as Adam was breathed on. Then there is the very
real Apostolic succession: John with Ignatius of Antioch, Peter w/ Clement
Paul w/ maybe Linus–the 1st a Bishop the latter Popes(although this word
Had not developed yet). All, yes, establishing a top down hierarchal
structure. Christ could have easily told the thousands assembled.
“O.K., first you raise money for who you want to elect. Then they.
campaign-- it will seem like forever. Then you vote for them.”
He didn’t. He walked and talked with his followers every day for several
years. They were sometimes a bit dense much to Christ’s consternation,
but they got this right. That hierarchy has prevailed against the gates of
hell for nearly 2,000 years.

P.S. The four Gospels and Acts could have been subtitled
Jesus, Peter and The Others
:whacky:

 

[RNRobert]

My issues with the papacy are further down the food chain. These involve the the distinction between “incapable of being wrong” versus “getting it right”. A secondary issue is what the impact of the church drifting away from being what God wants it to be impacts its ability to “get it right”. A third issue (maybe related to this second) is that the distinction between infallability and impeccability as made by Catholicism really seems arbitrary and inconsistent.

I don’t see a contradiction entween infallibility and impeccability. In Galatians 2, Paul tells how he took Peter to task for shunning the Gentile converts and eating only with Jewish Christians. This does not impair Peter’s ability to teach the truth.
As far as the “church drifting away from what God wants,” I believe God prevents that from happening.

 

[mozart-250]

I don’t see a contradiction entween infallibility and impeccability. In Galatians 2, Paul tells how he took Peter to task for shunning the Gentile converts and eating only with Jewish Christians. This does not impair Peter’s ability to teach the truth.
As far as the “church drifting away from what God wants,” I believe God prevents that from happening.

Here is the inconsistency…

The scripture presented to me to support infallibility is “and the gates of hell will not prevail against it”.

A failure of the church in the area of doctrine is taken as “the gates of hell prevailing against it”, yet a failure of the church in the area of conduct is not a similar type of failure. Why not; they are both failures.

I’m not an expert of church history, but for one example of the church drifting away from what God wants, I would cite the persecution of the anabaptists by both the reformed and the Catholic in the 16th and 17th centuries.

It is just too much for me to believe that at the time when the Catholics (and reformed) are hunting down and burning (or drowning) the anabaptists like I swat flies on my wall, that God at the same time is granting the Catholics the precious gift of infallibility at Trent in order to anathematize the Protestants…

This is a little off topic, but I had to explain myself.

 

[RNRobert]

Here is the inconsistency…

The scripture presented to me to support infallibility is “and the gates of hell will not prevail against it”.

A failure of the church in the area of doctrine is taken as “the gates of hell prevailing against it”, yet a failure of the church in the area of conduct is not a similar type of failure. Why not; they are both failures.

I’m not an expert of church history, but for one example of the church drifting away from what God wants, I would cite the persecution of the anabaptists by both the reformed and the Catholic in the 16th and 17th centuries.

It is just too much for me to believe that at the time when the Catholics (and reformed) are hunting down and burning (or drowning) the anabaptists like I swat flies on my wall, that God at the same time is granting the Catholics the precious gift of infallibility at Trent in order to anathematize the Protestants…

This is a little off topic, but I had to explain myself.

The persecution of the anabaptists was wrong, but how was it a failure in doctrine? I remember what Fulton Sheen said about the Reformation: That it reformed doctrine when it was morals that needed reforming. Remember, we are all sinful humans. The doctrine of infallibility doesn’t guarantee the holiness of Church leaders. They should be holy, but aren’t always (remember Jesus words to the Jews about “obeying those who sit on the seat of Moses” even if they don’t practice what they preach). Infallibility simply means protecting the leaders from teaching error. There is an incident in early Church history that illustrates this. I forget some of the details (maybe other Catholics on the forum can help me out here), but there was a wife of one of the Byzantine Emperors who supported a certain heresy (I think monophysitism, but I’m not sure). There was a bishop or priest that said if she helped him become Pope he would teach the heresy as an article of the faith. She contrived to have the sitting Pope deposed and exiled. This priest was elected Pope, but to the Empress’s surprise, he suddenly had a change of heart and refused to teach the heresy. I forget the Pope’s name, but I believe he was also exiled.

Look at it another way: Paul called himself the “chief of sinners” but God protected him (and other Sacred authors) from error when they wrote Scripture.

 

[Mannyfit75]

There was a bishop or priest that said if she helped him become Pope he would teach the heresy as an article of the faith. She contrived to have the sitting Pope deposed and exiled. This priest was elected Pope, but to the Empress’s surprise, he suddenly had a change of heart and refused to teach the heresy. I forget the Pope’s name, but I believe he was also exiled.

Look at it another way: Paul called himself the “chief of sinners” but God protected him (and other Sacred authors) from error when they wrote Scripture.

Here is your answer,

The four Popes whose orthodoxy was challenged were the 16th Pope, St. Callistus I (217-222); the 36th Pope, Liberius (352-366); the 71st Pope, Honorius I (625-638); and the 196th Pope, John XXII (1316-1334). According to his critic and rival, the first antipope, St. Hippolytus, Pope St. Callistus I favored the Monarchian heresy which in his time was circulating a profession of faith stating that as man Jesus is the Son, but as God he is the Father. Before becoming Pope, St. Cal listus was closely associated with Sabellius, the leading promoter of this heresy. But after becoming Pope, St. Callistus condemned Sabellius for heresy and excommunicated him. St. Hippolytus was finally reconciled with the Church and papal authority, and died a martyr during one of the Roman imperial persecutions of the Church, along with Pope St. Pontian.

 

[Bishopite]

Here is the inconsistency…

The scripture presented to me to support infallibility is “and the gates of hell will not prevail against it”.

A failure of the church in the area of doctrine is taken as “the gates of hell prevailing against it”, yet a failure of the church in the area of conduct is not a similar type of failure. Why not; they are both failures.

Jesus’ promise to Peter in Matthew 16:15-19 isn’t one that guards every act Peter makes nor does it guard against him being impeccable (perfect) but is one theologically that gaurds against his or his successors, teaching dogmatic error upon the whole Church* or the universal [Catholic] Church. The Greek points to a singular you as someone else pointed out. As the book “Jesus, Peter, and the Keys” says…

"47. Does stewardship of the keys apply to a singular or plural “you” in Mattew 16:19? To a singular “you,” i.e., to Peter. Soi is the singular dative form of “you” in Greek, and the verb forms of bind and loose are in the singular form also.
48. As this promise concerning the keys is made singularly and solely to Peter, are the other Apostles granted stewardship of the keys of the kingdom of heaven

? No.

“That Peter is given these priviliges in an exclusive realm is demonstrated by the use of the Greek singular throughout the passage. The ‘you’ in the phrases, ‘I [will] give you the keys,’ ‘you shall bind,’ and ‘you shall loose’ are Greek singulars, reffering to one man, namely Peter. In Matthew 18:18, the plural of “you” is used when Jesus is addressing all the apostles. Peter is the only one of the apostles who is given the keys of the kingdom. These keys are directly related to the power of binding and loosing of which Peter is given a singular prerogative not given to any other apostle. Hence, heaven will confirm the singular decrees [on faith and morals] of Peter and keep him from error, independent of the other apostles. “Robert A. Sungenis, “The Precedent for infallibility,” letters to authors, November 1993,5.” (Jesus, Peter and the Keys, Queenship publishing, pages 61-62)”

I’m not an expert of church history, but for one example of the church drifting away from what God wants, I would cite the persecution of the anabaptists by both the reformed and the Catholic in the 16th and 17th centuries.

That’s a behavioral problem called sin (Rom 3:23) as all of us have. That doesn’t address dogma nor doctine which is what Jesus is saying to Peter in Matthew 16.

It is just too much for me to believe that at the time when the Catholics (and reformed) are hunting down and burning (or drowning) the anabaptists like I swat flies on my wall, that God at the same time is granting the Catholics the precious gift of infallibility at Trent in order to anathematize the Protestants…

To look at that time period is to understand that doctrine was combined with the law of the land in many countries, that’s just how it was in that time, so for one to be a heretic was to be against the Nation also, they were bonded together. Hind site in always (well almost always) 20/20. Looking at that time period with 21st century lens doesn’t give a correct picture. Mistakes were made by all parties, unfortunately.

And…the Apostles were perfect when they wrote infallible Scripture? No so that logic can’t follow.

 

[mercygate]

The persecution of the anabaptists was wrong, but how was it a failure in doctrine? I remember what Fulton Sheen said about the Reformation: That it reformed doctrine when it was morals that needed reforming.

I’m not sure that from a 16th Century perspective I would agree that the persecution of anabaptists was wrong. Today we deplore the means employed. But nobody – I mean NOBODY – thought that “faith” was a harmless personal enterprise and that freedom of speech was a personal right. Faith was a matter of absolute conviction of the Truth. Preaching heresy was akin to yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater.

The promulgation of heresy was a catastrophic assault on the souls of the faithful, upon the Body of Christ, upon the Church, and upon the State. It destabilized the entire European continent for a century.

Today, we have an extremely dilulted idea of the public role of religious conviction, considering it a private matter. This was definitely not true in the 16th & 17th centuries.

And you are right: none of that chaos in the 16th & 17th centuries (for which there is plenty of mud to sling on both sides, thank you very much) touches the fact that the Apostolic See remained absolutely and consistently faithful in its teaching.

It is often said that proof that the Catholic Church is the Church lies in the fact that it has recovered from and survived its own corruption.

 

[RNRobert]

Hi Mercygate,

Excellent post! Jesus and many writers of sacred scripture condemned false teaching and false teachers and told Christians to keep away from them. Of course, you can’t call something false unless you have an objective of what is true. Also, IF the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus founded, then not only has the right, but the duty, to protect its flock from error.
Interestingly, Jude in his epistle says that false teachers “perish in Korah’s rebellion” (verse 11). What was Korah’s rebellion? He rejected the authority that God had given to Moses and Aaron (Numbers 16).

 

[mercygate]

Hi Mercygate,

Excellent post! Jesus and many writers of sacred scripture condemned false teaching and false teachers and told Christians to keep away from them. Of course, you can’t call something false unless you have an objective of what is true. Also, IF the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus founded, then not only has the right, but the duty, to protect its flock from error.
Interestingly, Jude in his epistle says that false teachers “perish in Korah’s rebellion” (verse 11). What was Korah’s rebellion? He rejected the authority that God had given to Moses and Aaron (Numbers 16).

Thanks, RNRobert. I tend to leave Korah’s rebellion out of my apologetic discussions – but ain’t that stupid! It goes right to the heart of the matter. Korah’s rebellion was *exactly *on the mark. “Yo, Moses: Who died and made you da boss? I got 250 goombahs here just as good as you!”

And of course, the earth opened up and sucked them all into the pit.

 

[Mike_Brick]

Here is the inconsistency.
A failure of the church in the area of doctrine is taken as “the gates of hell prevailing against it”, yet a failure of the church in the area of conduct is not a similar type of failure. Why not; they are both failures.

Where is the failure, with the Church, or with church-men? That’s the distinction between infallibility and impecability. The Church, that is the whole body, is protected, while individual churchmen and churchwomen are not thus protected. And the Church, with a capital “C”, is only protected from teaching error when speaking as a whole on matters of faith and/or morals.

It is just too much for me to believe that at the time when the Catholics (and reformed) are hunting down and burning (or drowning) the anabaptists like I swat flies on my wall, that God at the same time is granting the Catholics the precious gift of infallibility at Trent in order to anathematize the Protestants.

You are describing a horrible time in Church history, but a more careful review will show both sides behaved similarly, and both were wrong for that. (My motto as a cop for so long was “Somewhere in the middle lies the truth, but it’s never dead center”.)

When Catholics behave badly, even a lot of them, is it the Church that is bad? Same thing applies for the many and varied protestant denominations. Remember my earlier anology about Knucklehead Clubs in organizations of people? We all have them, but they exist because organizations are composed of humans, it’s not the organization, it’s the individuals, even when a group.

And more importantly, infallibility is God’s gift to the Church, not to churchmen, and it was not granted at Trent, it was granted when Jesus spoke those famous words about the “gates of hell not prevailing”. Trent only explained and codified the earlier and still continuing promise of Jesus the Christ, which was in great debate at the time of Trent.

Peace.

 

[mozart-250]

it was granted when Jesus spoke those famous words about the “gates of hell not prevailing”…

OK…I’ve read through all the posts, but nobody really answered my question(s), so I will rephrase. I will get back to the questions about central authority in the church elsewhere (maybe in another thread). But it is my observation that without a centralized authority the early church could not have assembled the canon or dealt with false teaching. But I’ll get back to that.

Since the title of the thread is Matthew 16…my question(s) will revolve around the phrase “gates of hell not prevail”

1. Why is a lapse in doctrine the “gates of hell prevailing against the church”, while a lapse in conduct (as cited above) is not the “gates of hell prevailing”? This seems inconsistent to me.
2. Why would any lapse be considered “gates of hell prevailing”? The verb prevail indicates some type of contest where one side emerges victorious (prevails). It does not indicate that the contest was a shutout.

 

[mercygate]

OK…I’ve read through all the posts, but nobody really answered my question(s), so I will rephrase. I will get back to the questions about central authority in the church elsewhere (maybe in another thread). But it is my observation that without a centralized authority the early church could not have assembled the canon or dealt with false teaching. But I’ll get back to that.

Since the title of the thread is Matthew 16…my question(s) will revolve around the phrase “gates of hell not prevail”

1. Why is a lapse in doctrine the “gates of hell prevailing against the church”, while a lapse in conduct (as cited above) is not the “gates of hell prevailing”? This seems inconsistent to me.

I see why this troubles you. There are two things here. First is the authority of the Church – which relates to the primacy of Peter and the power of the keys. This is a narrow, restricted claim limited to teaching in faith and morals and to the binding and loosing of sin. Individual moral lapses are just that: individual or perhaps institutional, but the Church as a divine body is “holy.” It is not limited by the walls of the buildings or the administrative connections across dioceses. The Church that cannot be sullied is the Communion of Saints, the body of Christ, the family of God. Catholics see the Roman Catholic Church on earth as only one part of that: the visible part. The gates (or jaws) of hell are always chomping at us, and sometimes they take a hunk out of our hide.

1. Why would any lapse be considered “gates of hell prevailing”? The verb prevail indicates some type of contest where one side emerges victorious (prevails). It does not indicate that the contest was a shutout.Great observation! And true! Triumph don’t always come cheap!

 

[colliric]

OK…I’ve read through all the posts, but nobody really answered my question(s), so I will rephrase. I will get back to the questions about central authority in the church elsewhere (maybe in another thread). But it is my observation that without a centralized authority the early church could not have assembled the canon or dealt with false teaching. But I’ll get back to that.

Since the title of the thread is Matthew 16…my question(s) will revolve around the phrase “gates of hell not prevail”

1. Why is a lapse in doctrine the “gates of hell prevailing against the church”, while a lapse in conduct (as cited above) is not the “gates of hell prevailing”? This seems inconsistent to me.
2. Why would any lapse be considered “gates of hell prevailing”? The verb prevail indicates some type of contest where one side emerges victorious (prevails). It does not indicate that the contest was a shutout.

1. Doctrine is infallible, Conduct is not. That is the simple answer. Everyone can Sin, including the pope… this is a lapse in conduct and is forgivable. However a Lapse in the clarification of Doctrine through papal infallibility would have disastrous consequences and would cause Church ending schism from within. That is why.
2. For the obvious reason in that it would bring the theological end of the church. Hell prevailing over Jesus. Of Cause as Jesus himself said, it is an impossibility, because god will not let it so.

 

[rbarcia]

Actually I am not proposing ‘office of this rock’ (remember I am not Catholic). The issue here in this passage is Peter and Peter alone. So I am in agreement this passage is not sufficient to support the papacy of Catholicism, even given the interpretation as Peter (which really reads to me like the best one).

Sorry for not reading your profile. I still do not feel the passage alone does not support it being Peter. You clearly stated it reads best, but is it spoken best? Based on passages by Peter and Paul later, plus Jesus parable of the builder, I think the context shows. Even the very context of the talk, Jesus asked who do they say I am? And the Father revealed it to Peter. Jesus then responded to Peter’s answer.

You misunderstood me. I was talking about basic 5th grade reading comprehension. My point was that 99.9 percent of the time the best reading of Scripture is a straightforward reading, one that requires 5th grade reading comprehension level.

I understand, but I think straight forward out of context is highly dangerous.

To get this word play proposed in Matthew 16, I have to know Greek or trust somebody without an agenda that knows Greek. Why is that necessary?

We can also trust that God worked through honest translators/

This is interesting. Answer is in relationship to centralization.

I have heard this said and have always had questions

• Why do you think a central organization structure is unscriptural?

The Apostles were clearly leaders and elders of the time. And individual churches must have people mature in the faith. But it does not resemble anything like a government looking structure that exists in Rome.

But clearly the Holy Spirit is the guide.

• Are centralized Protestant denominations like Southern Baptist unscriptural?
• How would you achieve and maintain unity without any central structure? What would have prevented the early church from fragmenting into denominations without this central structure?

The Holy Spirit

• The early church had several challenges. One was the challenge of heresy. How could the early church have handled say Arianism if it were not centralized?

Most of the early church was scattered throughout the world escaping the Roman Empire. This was not till later.

• Similarly how would the canon have been produced without a central structure.

God uses people to preserve His word. Similar for the Old Testement and the Jewish people.

I have been in non-denoms and denominational churches and from everything I have observed, the denominational ones work better.

What do you mean work better? I would think this is a lack of organization of the people.

 

[mozart-250]

I still do not feel the passage alone does not support it being Peter.

Then I guess we will have to disagree. A very convincing argument to me is reading of Protestans scholars (who if they have any biases would be the other way) stating that the best reading of the Greek here is Peter.

Although I am skeptical of those who come to me with Greek and an agenda, I value highly the opinion of those who know Greek and do not have an agenda.

The Holy Spirit

My reason for asking the question is this? I know

(1) I know that the noncentralized Protestants after the reformation subdivided quite quickly into various opposing denominations that often considered the other denominations heretics. (I disagree with Catholicism that denominations are a result of “Sola Scriptura”, more likely they are a result of no central, effective unifying authority.)
(2) I do not know of one thing of significance that would require the cooperation of the whole church that has been accomplished since the reformation.
(3) Therefore I have no reason to believe that a noncentralized divided church could have either dealt effectively with heresy or decide the canon. I can reasonably conclude that God had a reason for using a centralized church carry out these assignments.

You claim centralization is not scriptural, but yet you did not answer my question whether Protestant denominations are scriptural. The reason why I ask is the only real differences I see between Protestant denominations and Catholicism is

• Catholicism claims they are incapable of error under certain conditions
• Catholicism claims their leadership goes back to the apostles and includes a period when all of Christendom was under one authority structure.

Other than that, both are centralized ecclesiastical organizations.

What do you mean work better? I would think this is a lack of organization of the people.

I have seen non-denoms get very wierd very quickly.

In a denomination, the pastors of a local church are accountable to people over them. If a church in a denomination gets wierd, it is dealt with (or should be anyway).