Non-Catholic Christians...Simon to Peter?

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prodigal sorry but this argument does not hold water. It’s only speculation that Christ spoke Aramaic and even if HE did Mathew still wrote in Greek using to different words. If Matthew had intended to tell us Peter the person was the actual rock the church would be built on then he would have written the Greek differently. He would have said something along the lines of “you are Petros and on you Petros I will build my church”. Instead the grammar of the Greek is written differently.

But name changes were never carried forward. Jacob was changed to Israel yet what stature did Jacob carry? It signified that the covenant GOD made with Abraham would be carried through Jacob and not Ishmael. But Jacob was not considered the new Abraham. Joseph had more power than Jacob because of his relationship with Pharaoh. Name changes don’t always coincide with an authoritative change in the person’s stature and never do we read in scripture that someone carried forward the significance or posture of the person whose name was changed.

The keys in Isaiah have nothing to do with the keys in Matthew. Jesus did not say I give you the keys to the house of David. Revelations confirms that Jesus alone is the holder of the keys to the house of David.

And now Christ alone sits on that throne with the keys. Peter never did.

There is no earthly throne and no reference to such a thing is even hinted at in scripture.

Whether you reject the Aramaic and prefer to argue the Greek translations, I explained that in my post #15. There was a masculine and feminine word for rock in the Greek language, similar to the use of gender nouns in the Spanish language, you know “la” for feminine and “el” for masculine. Matthew, because of the cultures and times, used the masculine word, as it would have been inappropriate to call Simon by a feminine name.

Let’s see what Christ said about the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven…

Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Christ sits upon His throne in heaven, but His prime minister was given the keys to His Kingdom, along with the power to bind and loose…

As for the throne of David, was not the throne of David considered given by God? The example of keys used in Isaiah 22:22 is an typological example, a prophesy if you will, fulfilled by Christ.

No scriptures hints at a throne on earth?

Why did Christ, knowing what was to come, tell the people to listen to those who sat upon the chair of Moses?

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

Was the chair of Moses not a chair to be ruled from, or a throne if you will?

How do we know Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Hebrew? The New Testament was written in Greek since the apostles began their mission by traveling and writing to Greece. However, occasionally the original words of Jesus are included in that text and all these words are in Aramaic. This leaves little room to doubt that Jesus spoke this language.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Jesus used a lot of nicknames for his followers.

• Mary was called “the Magdalene” [Luke 8:2]

Simon was called “Rock” (Peter) by Jesus [Mark 3:16]

• James and John were called “Sons of Thunder” (Boanerges) by Jesus [Mark 3:17]
• Judas was called “the Twin” (Thomas or Didymos) [John 11:16]
• Simon was called “the Zealot” [Luke 6:15]

I think they were discriptive names. Like James and John were very quick to anger. Peter was hard headed and solid. Mary was from Magdela.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Jesus used a lot of nicknames for his followers.

• Mary was called “the Magdalene” [Luke 8:2]

Simon was called “Rock” (Peter) by Jesus [Mark 3:16]

• James and John were called “Sons of Thunder” (Boanerges) by Jesus [Mark 3:17]
• Judas was called “the Twin” (Thomas or Didymos) [John 11:16]
• Simon was called “the Zealot” [Luke 6:15]

I think they were discriptive names. Like James and John were very quick to anger. Peter was hard headed and solid. Mary was from Magdela.

While Mark does tell us what Simon was called, it was more than a “nickname”. Even though Mark was an author of a Gospel, he recorded what he had been taught as he was not a direct eyewitness to Christ’s renaming Simon.

Matthew, on the other hand, was an Apostle who witnessed the name being given to Peter.

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prodigal sorry but this argument does not hold water. It’s only speculation that Christ spoke Aramaic and even if HE did Mathew still wrote in Greek using to different words.

Mar 5:41 And taking the damsel by the hand, he saith to her: Talitha cumi, which is, being interpreted: Damsel (I say to thee) arise.

Mar 7:34 And looking up to heaven, he groaned and said to him: Ephpheta, which is, Be thou opened.

Mar 14:36 And he saith: Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee: remove this chalice from me; but not what I will, but what thou wilt.

Mat 5:22 But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

Luk 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one and love the other: or he will hold to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

Joh 20:16 Jesus saith to her: Mary. She turning, saith to him: Rabboni (which is to say, Master).

Mar 10:51 And Jesus answering, said to him: What wilt thou that I should do to thee? And the blind man said to him: Rabboni. That I may see.

Below, two authors of the Gospels wrote the same phrase, one in Hebrew, one in Aramaic.

Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying: Eli, Eli, lamma sabacthani? That is, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Mar 15:34 And at the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying: Eloi, Eloi, lamma sabacthani? Which is, being interpreted: My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me?

Mat 27:6 But the chief priests having taken the pieces of silver, said: It is not lawful to put them into the corbona, because it is the price of blood.

Mar 7:11 But you say: If a man shall say to his father or mother, Corban (which is a gift) whatsoever is from me shall profit thee.

*In Aramaic (קרבנא) it refers to the treasury in the Temple in Jerusalem, derived from the Hebrew Korban (קרבן), found in Mark 7:11 and the Septuagint (in Greek transliteration), meaning religious gift.

The Greek κορβανᾶς is declined as a Greek noun. Greeks regularly added endings to Semitic and Hebrew words when transliterating Hebrew words in the Septuagint.*

Joh 1:42 And 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.

1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

Mat 26:36 Then Jesus came with them into a country place which is called Gethsemani. And he said to his disciples: Sit you here, till I go yonder and pray.

Mar 14:32 And they came to a farm called Gethsemani. And he saith to his disciples: Sit you here, while I pray.

Mar 15:22 And they bring him into the place called Golgotha, which being interpreted is, The place of Calvary.

Joh 19:17 And bearing his own cross, he went forth to the place which is called Calvary, but in Hebrew Golgotha.

*This is clearly Aramaic rather than Hebrew. ‘Gûlgaltâ’ is the Aramaic for ‘skull’. The name appears in all of the gospels except Luke, which calls the place simply Kranion ‘the Skull’, with no Aramaic. The name ‘Calvary’ is taken from the Latin Vulgate translation, Calvaria.

In Aramaic, it could be גלגלתא.*

This is only to offer an origin of where “speculations” came from.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Before Christ’s ascension, who did He ask, 3 times, to feed His sheep?

He wanted Peter to know that his failure hadn’t disqualified him from fulfilling his role as an Apostle? None of the other Apostles denied him verbally three times in public so they didn’t need to be reconfirmed three times verbally in public?

Who stood up and called for a replacement to Judas Iscariot?

He didn’t the name the replacement, did he? Confirms the impetuous streak he shows throughout the Gospels

At the council of Jerusalem, Peter again rose up to speak.

And James wrapped things up and dictated the letter to be sent-we do have ECF evidence that James was the leader of the Jerusalem church

When the Apostles are listed in scriptures, why is it Peter’s name always comes first?

Because he was the first one picked. The lists run fairly close to the order of selection in the narrative.

There are times in scriptures that Peter is mentioned individually, but not those with him.

True, just as we have lots of examples of “the disciple that Jesus loved” being specifically mentioned, and Thomas, and James and John…and Judas!.

Peter spoke for the Apostles.

People spoke first, but there’s nothing in the text to make him the apostolic spokesperson. Just as a teacher addresses a class and some students instantly blurt out an answer, Peter was impetuous, being wrong as much of the time as he was right. (Remember “get thee behind me Satan”?)

In fact, Peter was mentioned by name 195 times in the New Testament, more than all the other Apostles put together…

As I said, Jesus honoured Peter for his confession by letting him preach the Pentecost sermon and to open the faith to the gentiles. Peter was very visible and therefore got a lot of mention. Yet in all that visibility no one jotted down stories of him wielding universal authority-curious, isn’t it?

Just because one reads the word “Pope” every time one see the name “Peter” doesn’t make it so.

 

[rbarcia]

Good thing Peter himself answers us in his epistle.
1 Peter 2

4As you come to him, the ** living Stone**—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For in Scripture it says:
"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame."7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
"The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone,"8and,
"A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall. They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.
Peter Knew that Jesus is the Stone and Rock, and his Epistle answers it. Jesus called Himself the Rock.

**
Matthew

7: 24"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.

**

There is very little interpretation needed here. Clear and simple. Christ is the Rock.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

He wanted Peter to know that his failure hadn’t disqualified him from fulfilling his role as an Apostle? None of the other Apostles denied him verbally three times in public so they didn’t need to be reconfirmed three times verbally in public?

The other Apostles ran away when Christ was arrested.

After asking Peter 3 times to feed His sheep, He told him:

**Joh 21:18 Amen, amen, I say to thee, When thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. **

He didn’t the name the replacement, did he? Confirms the impetuous streak he shows throughout the Gospels

He said his piece, and Matthias was selected…

Act 1:13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus and Simon Zelotes and Jude the brother of James.
Act 1:14 All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
Act 1:15 In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty):
Act 1:16 Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus:
Act 1:17 Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
Act 1:18 And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out.
Act 1:19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.
Act 1:21 Wherefore of these men who have companied with us, all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us,
Act 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection.
Act 1:23 And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
Act 1:24 And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the heart of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
Act 1:25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.
Act 1:26 And they gave them lot, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

And James wrapped things up and dictated the letter to be sent-we do have ECF evidence that James was the leader of the Jerusalem church

James, as bishop of Jerusalem, affirmed what Peter, the head Apostle had stated. Peter had already ended the disputing. Peter spoke and reminded them who had included the Gentiles.

**Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. **

Because he was the first one picked. The lists run fairly close to the order of selection in the narrative.

By every author, of every book, even those that were not present at those that were chosen.

True, just as we have lots of examples of “the disciple that Jesus loved” being specifically mentioned, and Thomas, and James and John…and Judas!.

**Luk 9:32 But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep. And waking, they saw his glory and the two men that stood with him.

Mar 16:7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee. There you shall see him, as he told you.**

They and his disciples are far from as descriptive as the examples you try to use.

People spoke first, but there’s nothing in the text to make him the apostolic spokesperson. Just as a teacher addresses a class and some students instantly blurt out an answer, Peter was impetuous, being wrong as much of the time as he was right. (Remember “get thee behind me Satan”?)

Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Sure seems to me, like alot of authority was being given.

As I said, Jesus honoured Peter for his confession by letting him preach the Pentecost sermon and to open the faith to the gentiles. Peter was very visible and therefore got a lot of mention. Yet in all that visibility no one jotted down stories of him wielding universal authority-curious, isn’t it?

How was a “confession” given the power to bind and loose on earth, with a promise it would be made so in heaven?

Just because one reads the word “Pope” every time one see the name “Peter” doesn’t make it so.

Just because people started denying Peter’s god given authority 1500+ years later doesn’t make it so…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Good thing Peter himself answers us in his epistle.
1 Peter 2

4As you come to him, the ** living Stone***—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For in Scripture it says:
"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame."7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
"The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone,"8and,
"A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall. They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

Peter Knew that Jesus is the Stone and Rock, and his Epistle answers it. Jesus called Himself the Rock.

**
Matthew

7: 24"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.

**

There is very little interpretation needed here. Clear and simple. Christ is the Rock.

1Pe 2:7 To you therefore that believe, he is honour: but to them that believe not, the stone which the builders rejected, the same is made the head of the corner:

Without a corner stone, a foundation of rock is useless, clear and simple.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

One shot denials of explanations, without explanations and scriptures to support the view always amaze me. I guess that’s all you get from a Church that is only a couple of hundred years old?

 

[rbarcia]

1Pe 2:7 To you therefore that believe, he is honour: but to them that believe not,** the stone which the builders rejected**, the same is made the head of the corner:

Without a corner stone, a foundation of rock is useless, clear and simple.

Are you seriously using the phrase “head of the corner” to say Peter was calling himself the Rock. This phrase is used to refer to those who rejected the stone, which is Christ? Reference to Old Testament prophecy about the Capstone that would crush unbelievers (Psalm 118:22) ?

1 Peter 2:7-8

7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
“The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone,” 8and,
“A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.” They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Are you seriously using the phrase “head of the corner” to say Peter was calling himself the Rock. This phrase is used to refer to those who rejected the stone, which is Christ? Reference to Old Testament prophecy about the Capstone that would crush unbelievers (Psalm 118:22) ?

1 Peter 2:7-8

7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
“The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone,” 8and,
“A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.” They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

Jesus called Peter the rock.

Eph 2:20 Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

I can’t help but notice you didn’t comment on my question of how can the power to bind and loose on earth, with a promise it would be made so in heaven, be granted to a “confession”…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Peter Knew that Jesus is the Stone and Rock, and his Epistle answers it. Jesus called Himself the Rock.

Jesus called Himself the rock, but said He would give “thee” the keys to the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever “thou” shalt bind upon the earth?

Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

When Christ spoke of Himself, He used “I”…

**Mat 5:17 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Joh 15:1 I am the true vine: and my Father is the husbandman.

Joh 10:7 Jesus therefore said to them again: Amen, amen, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.**

He did not say, I am the rock on which I will build my Church…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There is very little interpretation needed here. Clear and simple.

Is it safe to assume you believe in private interpretation of scriptures, as guided by the Holy Spirit?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Definition of Pope

English: nickname from Middle English pope (derived via Old English from Late Latin papa ‘bishop’, ‘pope’, from Greek pappas ‘father’, in origin a nursery word.) In the early Christian Church, the Latin term was at first used as a title of respect for male clergy of every rank, but in the Western Church it gradually came to be restricted to bishops, and then only to the bishop of Rome; in the Eastern Church it continued to be used of all priests

The name Pope was applied basically all the clergy of the church at first. Therefore, wouldn’t John and James and Thomas etc. and all the apostles be called Popes too? Since when is Peter the first Pope?

It’s true that Jesus called Peter the Rock, but actually, Jesus was the cornerstone, and the stone that the builders rejected. Peter was blessed by Jesus, but he was also admonished - “Get behind me, Satan!” . John was the one Jesus loved the best. Actually all the apostles were very important to building the Christian church. John went with Paul on his journeys, James had an important church in Jerusalem, Thomas preached in India, etc, etc. Couldn’t have happened without ALL or them!

 

[Peter_J]

Jesus was alluding prophetically to Peter making his confession in Matthew when he changed his name in John. He addresses him as Simon after this, but once the revelation has been given to Peter and he confesses Jesus as the Christ, Jesus reaffirms the use of Peter. Once again, in Matthew, Jesus speaks prophetically about the gift he has prepared for Peter at the time of the church’s founding.

So for me it isn’t Peter the person or Peter the confession, the two are inseparable. The fulfillment of Christ’s promise to Peter is that he will build the church, and he does so on the day of Pentecost by confessing Jesus as the Christ-Peter the man and confession together. Peter is also blessed by making this confession and preaching to the Gentiles and opening salvation to them.

Obviously this charism would be unique to Peter and limited in duration to the start of the church since once the foundation is laid, then you build on it. But the honour of having done so would rest with him throughout his life and be remembered every time someone called him Peter.

Definitely you build on it.

But on the other hand, the foundation is still there, even after the house is built. I wouldn’t be sitting calmly at my computer if I didn’t think that the foundation is still down there.

 

[Peter_J]

To start, I don’t have a problem with Peter being the first Pope…yet. To help me with this one, maybe someone can answer this question:

I know about how the “rock” section in Matthew is used to justify Peter’s place. I got that. And I know that people point out that the two words for the “rock” in Greek are two completely different words with different meanings. I have also been told that Aramaic that there is NO difference between the two words. All that is clear to me. So…

Why did those that compiled the canon allow a translation that could lead to problems? Why not translate it and write it so there would be no problems? I just don’t understand why they would leave any room for error when dealing with such a major issue.

One thing that should be kept in mind here is that translations not only make a text accessible to people who don’t speak the original language, but they also (within reason, of course) reflect the thinking that they came out of.

For example, Protestants often criticism Catholics for translating the Greek word kecharitomene, in the Angel Gabriel’s greeting to Mary, as gratia plena (“full of grace”). But what they fail to grasp is that the fact the St. Jerome translated kecharitomene as gratia plena is a significant indication of the thinking of the early Church on the matter.

What we are discussing here stands at an even higher level than St. Jerome’s translative-activities. (St. Jerome is highly respected for his translations, but he wasn’t inspired like the Evangelists were inspired.) When the Gospels report Christ’s words in Greek, we can take what they report as reliable, even though it’s a translation of Christ’s actual words which were in Hebrew or Aramaic.

So the question is, does “You are Petros and on this Petra I will build my church” present a problem for Catholics, and show a disharmony between Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition?

By no means! On the contrary, we see harmony here between Scripture and Tradition: when we look at the early Church fathers, we see that some of them identified the “rock” as Peter himself, and others identified it as Peter’s confession of faith, and still others thought that both were (somehow) correct.* It wouldn’t make sense for such a difference of opinion among the fathers to exist, if the Gospel had said “You are Petros and on you Petros I will build my church.”

• Personally, I think the idea that the rock is Peter and is (somehow) also Peter’s confession, is the best explanation.

 

[Non_Serviam]

The other Apostles ran away when Christ was arrested.

Try again-John 18 NAB

15 Simon Peter and another disciple followed Jesus. Now the other disciple was known to the high priest, and he entered the courtyard of the high priest with Jesus.
16 But Peter stood at the gate outside. So the other disciple, the acquaintance of the high priest, went out and spoke to the gatekeeper and brought Peter in.

If you look at the NAB footnotes they believe that this is the disciple whom Jesus loved, commonly believed to be John himself. And he didn’t deny Jesus that night and was at the cross.

After asking Peter 3 times to feed His sheep, He told him:

**Joh 21:18 Amen, amen, I say to thee, When thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. **

Yes Jesus said this to him after Peter expressed surprise that he would still have the same ministry as John, the disciple who didn’t deny Jesus at the High priest’s home. Thus Peter knew his future and supreme pontiff wasn’t included in what Jesus said.

He said his piece, and Matthias was selected…

Act 1:24 And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the heart of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
Act 1:25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.
Act 1:26 And they gave them lot, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

“They” did it, not “he”-not the way Bishops are appointed now in the Catholic church is it-seems Peter wasn’t aware of papal protocol.

James, as bishop of Jerusalem, affirmed what Peter, the head Apostle had stated. Peter had already ended the disputing. Peter spoke and reminded them who had included the Gentiles.

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

You note how people confirms my description of the promise Jesus made to him? Doesn’t say anything about being made universal shepherd.

You missed the part that came after this

Acts 15:12 The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them.

Seems the discussion wasn’t over after Peter spoke-it was James who “called the question” so to speak, he had the authority in the meeting.

By every author, of every book, even those that were not present at those that were chosen.

Here’s some homework for you-go check out the listing for “American presidents” in a few different encyclopedias-see who comes first in the complete lists of presidents, even though the writers weren’t there.

Luke checked with people who’d been there and tradition suggests that Mark got his information directly from Peter, who would have known when he was chosen.

They and his disciples are far from as descriptive as the examples you try to use.

Are they? Here’s just one:

John 20

24 Thomas, called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came.
25 So the other disciples said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into the nailmarks and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
26 Now a week later his disciples were again inside and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.”

Fairly descriptive to me. Look the others up yourself.

Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Sure seems to me, like alot of authority was being given.

Yes, and we see from the quote in Acts 15 how Peter thought it was to be used:

**Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. **

How was a “confession” given the power to bind and loose on earth, with a promise it would be made so in heaven?

It was by speaking that confession that Peter caused them to believe and they were loosed from their sins when they obeyed his words in Acts 2:38. Peter acted in that authority when he proclaimed Jesus as the Christ-the man and the confession together.

Just because people started denying Peter’s god given authority 1500+ years later doesn’t make it so…

Nether does 1500 years of interpreting scripture to one’s own benefit and “confirming” that interpretation with false documents.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Definitely you build on it.

But on the other hand, the foundation is still there, even after the house is built. I wouldn’t be sitting calmly at my computer if I didn’t think that the foundation is still down there.

Peter, good to see you.

Your point is accurate-of course as a Catholic you believe the church transcends space and time so that Peter is still a part of it, albeit from heaven as part of the Church Triumphant. Likewise those he brought into the church are hopefully there with him as well. So the foundation he built on the day of Pentecost is still there.

Are we agreed that “foundation” isn’t a synonym for “ruling authority”, especially given Peter’s description of God’s promise to him in Acts 15:7?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Try again-John 18 NAB

15 Simon Peter and another disciple followed Jesus. Now the other disciple was known to the high priest, and he entered the courtyard of the high priest with Jesus.
16 But Peter stood at the gate outside. So the other disciple, the acquaintance of the high priest, went out and spoke to the gatekeeper and brought Peter in.

If you look at the NAB footnotes they believe that this is the disciple whom Jesus loved, commonly believed to be John himself. And he didn’t deny Jesus that night and was at the cross.

**Mat 26:56 Now all this was done that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then the disciples, all leaving him, fled.

Mar 14:50 Then his disciples, leaving him, all fled away.**

Yes Jesus said this to him after Peter expressed surprise that he would still have the same ministry as John, the disciple who didn’t deny Jesus at the High priest’s home. Thus Peter knew his future and supreme pontiff wasn’t included in what Jesus said.

I’m afraid you’re mistaken. Christ did not say they would have the same ministry. Why is it Christ told Peter, and only Peter, to feed His sheep, three times?

Joh 21:17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.
Joh 21:18 Amen, amen, I say to thee, When thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee and lead thee whither thou wouldst not.
Joh 21:19 And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me.
Joh 21:20 Peter turning about, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also leaned on his breast at supper and said: Lord, who is he that shall betray thee?
Joh 21:21 Him therefore when Peter had seen, he saith to Jesus: Lord, and what shall this man do?
Joh 21:22 Jesus saith to him: So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? Follow thou me.
Joh 21:23 This saying therefore went abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die. And Jesus did not say to him: He should not die; but: So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee?
Joh 21:24 This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things and hath written these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
Joh 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

“They” did it, not “he”-not the way Bishops are appointed now in the Catholic church is it-seems Peter wasn’t aware of papal protocol.

Peter spoke, and they did pray over casting lots to replace Judas, as a council following the leader should have. (Read the entire passage, I am not posting the entire thing because of limitations on posts.)

Act 1:15 In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty):
Act 1:16 Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus:
Act 1:17 Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

You note how people confirms my description of the promise Jesus made to him? Doesn’t say anything about being made universal shepherd.

You my friend seem to be searching to justify denial.

(to be continued…)

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

(continued)

You missed the part that came after this

Acts 15:12 The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them.

Seems the discussion wasn’t over after Peter spoke-it was James who “called the question” so to speak, he had the authority in the meeting.

I did not miss any part.

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, and spoke. The others held their peace at Peters words, so Paul and Barnabas could be heard. Then James, who was bishop of Jerusalem, affirmed what had been spoken.

Here’s some homework for you-go check out the listing for “American presidents” in a few different encyclopedias-see who comes first in the complete lists of presidents, even though the writers weren’t there.

You condescending and sarcastic tone is enough, you don’t have to try and change the subject to presidents to make a point, or take the discussion circular to serve your purposes.

Luke checked with people who’d been there and tradition suggests that Mark got his information directly from Peter, who would have known when he was chosen.

So you’re admitting Peter told Mark to always write his name first because he was the leader of the Apostles?

Are they? Here’s just one:

John 20

24 Thomas, called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came.
25 So the other disciples said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into the nailmarks and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
26 Now a week later his disciples were again inside and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.”

Fairly descriptive to me. Look the others up yourself.

Thomas was a twin. That was not a descriptive term, it was a truth. I am providing the Greek translation for you below.

G1324
Δίδυμος
Didumos
did’-oo-mos
Prolonged from G1364; double, that is, twin; Didymus, a Christian: - Didymus.

Yes, and we see from the quote in Acts 15 how Peter thought it was to be used:

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Could it have been the passage below that Peter was describing as God made a choice among them?

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

It was by speaking that confession that Peter caused them to believe and they were loosed from their sins when they obeyed his words in Acts 2:38. Peter acted in that authority when he proclaimed Jesus as the Christ-the man and the confession together.

Respectfully, I disagree with your interpretation. The power to bind and loose, is a power to make decisions. This is affirmed by Christ giving Peter the keys to the Kingdom of heaven.

Nether does 1500 years of interpreting scripture to one’s own benefit and “confirming” that interpretation with false documents.

You take something in the ninth century and wipe away everything up to that point.

I see you have “unconvinced” listed as your religion. Is there a reason behind hiding your Church affliation? Not that I would turn this into a “glass house” argument on you. It’s just so sad to see people look at the actions of men and doubt Christ’s ability to keep His promise of, “, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”