Other Christian denomination responses?

[schaick]

Was Peter the Rock?.

Jesus is the rock mentioned over and over:

Corinthians 10:4and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ

Romans 9:33As it is written:
“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”

Habakkuk 1: 12 O LORD, are you not from everlasting?
My God, my Holy One, we will not die.
O LORD, you have appointed them to execute judgment;
O Rock, you have ordained them to punish.

Isaiah 26: 4 Trust in the LORD forever,
for the LORD, the LORD, is the Rock eternal.

Psalm 144:
1 Praise be to the LORD my Rock,
who trains my hands for war,
my fingers for battle.

Psalm 94: 22 But the LORD has become my fortress,
and my God the rock in whom I take refuge.

Psalm 62: 2 He alone is my rock and my salvation;
he is my fortress, I will never be shaken.

Isaiah 44:8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."

2 Samuel 22: 32 For who is God besides the LORD ?
And who is the Rock except our God?

1 Corinthians 3:11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ

What did the aposstle do to be considered the foundation? Proclaimed the Gospel TRUTH.

Ephesians 2
19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

What did Peter do to be considered a foundation of the Church? Proclaim the TRUTH about Jesus.

 

[MuddyRocker]

My interpretation differs from yours. Your point of Jerusalem not Rome is a moot point as the Church ended up in Rome, by the Apostles.

Peter rose up and spoke, then all discussions quieted. Then the Bishop of Jerusalem affirmed what Peter said.

There was a time Paul corrected Peter, as any good bishop should do, and Peter listened, as any good leader would do.

There was no divisions in the Church at that time, not like the picture you’re trying to paint.

I find it hard to believe anyone would even slightly besmirch any of the Apostles to somehow support a modern theology. :tsktsk:

I was not implying any divisions. Only that the church was in Jerusalem, not Rome. And at the head of the church was James, not Peter. Scripture does not say that James was Bishop either, only that he was at the head of the church in Jerusalem. Paul corrected Peter after he followed instructions given to him by James (Your Bishop of Jerusalem) and Peter listened because he knew what Paul said was correct and, you are right - he was a good leader. I would never besmirch any of the Apostles to support any theology, not quite sure what you are insinuating there, but no matter. The fact is, no one can prove that Peter was ever a Bishop just as I cannot prove for certain that he was not. However, I believe that if he had been the Bishop of Rome, then scripture would have stated that somewhere just as it stated titles for Roman officials and Jewish officials.
And besides, the primacy of the church in Rome really never took effect until the 4th century. Prior to that, it was just another church - not the “HOME” church. Although, the Bishop of Rome did claim preeminence, it was mostly due to population until Constantine called the councils together and the Bishop of Rome claimed Petrine succession to require all other Bishops to submit to his authority.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Jesus is the rock mentioned over and over:

Corinthians 10:4and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ

Romans 9:33As it is written:
“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”

Habakkuk 1: 12 O LORD, are you not from everlasting?
My God, my Holy One, we will not die.
O LORD, you have appointed them to execute judgment;
O Rock, you have ordained them to punish.

Isaiah 26: 4 Trust in the LORD forever,
for the LORD, the LORD, is the Rock eternal.

Psalm 144:
1 Praise be to the LORD my Rock,
who trains my hands for war,
my fingers for battle.

Psalm 94: 22 But the LORD has become my fortress,
and my God the rock in whom I take refuge.

Psalm 62: 2 He alone is my rock and my salvation;
he is my fortress, I will never be shaken.

Isaiah 44:8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."

2 Samuel 22: 32 For who is God besides the LORD ?
And who is the Rock except our God?

1 Corinthians 3:11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ

What did the aposstle do to be considered the foundation? Proclaimed the Gospel TRUTH.

Ephesians 2
19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

What did Peter do to be considered a foundation of the Church? Proclaim the TRUTH about Jesus.

Jesus did not SAY, I am rock and upon myself I built my Church.

There are many scriptures that refer to Christ as the corner stone. You know, that the ‘builder rejected’. A building cannot stand without the corner stone. The rock is the foundation. Christ is the head of His body, which is His Church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I was not implying any divisions. Only that the church was in Jerusalem, not Rome. And at the head of the church was James, not Peter. Scripture does not say that James was Bishop either, only that he was at the head of the church in Jerusalem. Paul corrected Peter after he followed instructions given to him by James (Your Bishop of Jerusalem) and Peter listened because he knew what Paul said was correct and, you are right - he was a good leader. I would never besmirch any of the Apostles to support any theology, not quite sure what you are insinuating there, but no matter. The fact is, no one can prove that Peter was ever a Bishop just as I cannot prove for certain that he was not. However, I believe that if he had been the Bishop of Rome, then scripture would have stated that somewhere just as it stated titles for Roman officials and Jewish officials.
And besides, the primacy of the church in Rome really never took effect until the 4th century. Prior to that, it was just another church - not the “HOME” church. Although, the Bishop of Rome did claim preeminence, it was mostly due to population until Constantine called the councils together and the Bishop of Rome claimed Petrine succession to require all other Bishops to submit to his authority.

Yes Constantine called the councils together, after legalizing Christianity and making it a national religion of the state. Prior to that the Churches did not operate openly as they do today. There was a penalty of death for being a Christian who would not renounce his faith.

Now the laughable, nowhere does it say so and so was a bishop.

Was Judas Iscariot the only bishop you’re aware of?

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.

All the Apostles were most certainly bishops and the verse above shows that these men realized their offices were meant to be of Apostolic succession according to scriptures!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

After Christ had renamed Simon to Peter, given Him the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the authority to bind and loose, He continued teaching the Apostles His ‘doctrines’. Many have denied that Peter was singled out, some only willing to concede that it was Peter’s confession that the Church was built upon.

What is the last thing the Gospel of John tells us Christ did? He appeared to the Apostles and singled Peter out, yet again. Considering the times, we know a shepherd took care of a flock. He told Peter three times to feed His sheep/lambs. Did He place any other disciple as shepherd? Did He tell any other to tend His sheep/lambs?

John recorded another discussion where Christ spoke about Him being the shepherd and His flock.

**Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.
Joh 10:12 But the hireling and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming and leaveth the sheep and flieth: and the wolf casteth and scattereth the sheep,
Joh 10:13 And the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling: and he hath no care for the sheep.
Joh 10:14 I am the good shepherd: and I know mine, and mine know me.
Joh 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep.
Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have that are not of this fold: them also I must bring. And they shall hear my voice: And there shall be one fold and one shepherd. **

Now, before the analogies arise that Peter was the hireling who fled, remember Peter was not alone when He had gone back fishing. There were other Apostles with Him, yet Christ singled him out and told Him, feed my sheep, three times. He did this in front of the other Apostles.

Did John record everything Christ did with His Apostles?

Right before writing about the Apostles going fishing, he wrote:

Joh 20:30 Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.
Joh 20:31 But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name.

He ended the story of Christ singling Peter out by writing:

**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. **

 

[MuddyRocker]

Are you saying Martin Luther was not excommunicated?

Not after his theses, he was not. It was not until almost 5 years later that the Pope excommunicated him.

 

[MuddyRocker]

Coincidently?

Christ starts off calling him Simon Bar-Jona and tells all that the answer was revealed to Peter by the Father in heaven.

**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. **

Now Christ states, ‘Thou are Peter…’ The Greek word for rock. ‘…and upon THIS rock I will built my Church…’

**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. **

The Lord continued with a train of thought when He continued by saying, ‘AND I will give to thee the keys…’ Peter became the key holder. The Lord continued His speaking to Peter with, ‘AND whatsoever you bind on earth…’ He was ONLY speaking these words to Peter, in front of witnesses.

**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. **

Reading it any other way, is reading into it so it fits a theology.

Your power grab theory is ludicrous. There was one Church, one authority, until the great schism and then you had two Churches with Catholic beliefs. Martin Luther did not leave the Church over a question of leadership.

Again, you besmirch an Apostle with your theories, to support your theology. The two men were not divided.

You want to address why Peter’s name appears 195 times in the New Testament? More than all the Apostles put together?

I would like to address something else in your post. You mentioned the verses from Matthew chapter 16. First thing I would like for you to notice is that the other gospel narratives are in harmony with Matthew on the statement Peter made, but that’s as far as they go; they do not express that Peter is the Rock upon which the church is built. Secondly, consider to whom the author of the gospel of Matthew was writing to and why he was writing. Remember, Paul’s writings are much older than the gospels. In fact, Matthew’s is not even the first gospel. And Matthew used Mark’s gospel as a source for his own material. (I know that some might suggest that the author could have gotten some of the info from Q, but then Luke would probably have more on this also) Anyway, the point is that Matthew has a reason for the way in which he portrays Peter. He employs techniques that are well known in order that his readers would understand what he was saying and at the same time, keep others from fully comprehending. Matthew’s audience was Jewish. Anyway, below I copied something that I had remembered but someone else posted, so I just copied their post below. But one of the statements is from St. Augustine:

I do not discount Peter’s pre-eminence among the apostles. I agree, however, with St. John Chrysostom (among others), who said ''wherein Christ says, ‘And I say unto you, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;’ that is, on the faith of his confession, (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200154.htm)"

and Augustine, "“In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. (Source:The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1.)” and again,

“And I tell you…‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ…Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. (Source: John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327.)”

 

[JonNC]

=Prodigal Son1;6342997]Jon, where did all the denominations come from? Martin Luther was first, then the others came.

Zwungli was a contemporary of Luther’s, but he was never Lutheran, that I am aware. Neither was Calvin that I know of, and so the reformed Churches were not of Lutheranism. The anabaptists developed independently. Anglicans were never Lutheran, and therefore, neither were Methodists. I don’t know about the more contemporary groups, but I’m not aware of any that have splintered off of Lutheranism.

There is evidence of infant baptism, the ‘measure’ of denial explicitly stated or not, reminded me of the infant baptism discussion on another thread. I was told ,by a Protestant, that the teaching is a contradiction of the Bible. I tried to explain, if it’s not explicitly stated in the Bible, it cannot be a contradiction. They didn’t agree.

You were right.

Jon

 

[MuddyRocker]

Was Peter the Rock?
This is a short discussion about Peter as the Rock. A full discussion exploring the Greek, Aramaic Biblical text, the history, early Christian quotes, and more is here.

In recent years some Evangelicals have suggested that the Greek word that means “rock” did not refer to Peter but only to his “faith.” I got an email that said:

However Jesus stated “upon this rock I will build my church” in reference to Peter’s declaration that He (Jesus) was the Christ (Matthew 16:16).

Let’s call this the “little rock, big rock” theory. I don’t think it holds up under scrutiny when we look at it grammatically, linguistically, historically and most important, Biblically. I think Jesus built his Church on people, not a declaration. Following through on the passage we see that Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter, not to his declaration. The little rock big rock theory is very new. All of the early reformers believed Peter was the rock (but they didn’t believe Peter had a successor, more about that below). The Reformer, Martin Luther, said this:

Why are you searching heavenward in search of my keys? Do you not understand, Jesus said, 'I gave them to Peter. They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven for I left them on earth. Peter’s mouth is my mouth, his tongue is my key case, his keys are my keys. They are an office. They are a power, a command given by God through Christ to all of Christendom for the retaining and remitting of the sins of men. (Martin Luther 1530 A.D.- after he left the Church 1)

W. F. Albright, one of the best known Protestant theologians of this century, in his Anchor Bible Commentary, says:

Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church…To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence.

All of the early Church interpreted Peter as the Rock also. For example, Tertullian said:

Was anything hid from Peter, who was called the Rock, whereon the Church was built; who obtained the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of loosing and of binding in heaven and on earth? (Tertullian, De Praescript Haeret, 220 A.D.)

I recently spoke with a grammar specialist who is not Catholic. She explained to me that the adjective “this” grammatically must refer to the nearest preceding noun, which was Peter, not his declaration which occurs two verses earlier.
When Jesus says “whatever you bind” to Peter in Mat 16:18, the Greek text used for “you” is singular. In Mat 18:18 the Greek text, the word for “you” in “whatever you bind” is plural. Catholics think these two juxtaposed but similar phrases lay out the early structure of the Church with Peter as the Pope and the other apostles as priests.

Examples of Peter’s Authority among the Apostles
•Next to Jesus, Peter is mentioned more than any other apostle in Scripture (152 times).
•He stood up and spoke on behalf of the apostles (Mt 19:27, Acts 1:15, 2:14)
•He stood up at the birth of the Church at the Pentecost to lead them. (Acts 2:14)
•The disciples were referred to as Peter and the Apostles. (Acts 2:37, 5:29)
•Peter was given the authority to forgive sins before the rest of the apostles. (Mat 16:18)
•He was always named first when the apostles were listed (Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13) – sometimes it was only “Peter and those who were with him” (Luke 9:32);
•John ran ahead of Peter to the tomb but upon arriving he stopped and did not go in. He waited and let Peter go in. (Jn 20:4)
•Jesus told Peter to “feed my lambs…tend my sheep… feed my sheep.” (Jn 21:15-17) The difference between a sheep and a lamb might be significant. A lamb is a baby, a sheep is an adult. Perhaps Jesus was asking Peter to take care of both the general people (the lambs), and the apostles (sheep). Regardless of that interpretation of sheep and lambs, it is clear Jesus is asking Peter to feed and tend his flock. That is what a shepherd does. It appears to me that he is asking Peter to shepherd his Church on earth, on his behalf.

I don’t think Peter’s authority among the disciples is in question by anyone.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I would like to address something else in your post. You mentioned the verses from Matthew chapter 16. First thing I would like for you to notice is that the other gospel narratives are in harmony with Matthew on the statement Peter made, but that’s as far as they go; they do not express that Peter is the Rock upon which the church is built. Secondly, consider to whom the author of the gospel of Matthew was writing to and why he was writing. Remember, Paul’s writings are much older than the gospels. In fact, Matthew’s is not even the first gospel. And Matthew used Mark’s gospel as a source for his own material. (I know that some might suggest that the author could have gotten some of the info from Q, but then Luke would probably have more on this also) Anyway, the point is that Matthew has a reason for the way in which he portrays Peter. He employs techniques that are well known in order that his readers would understand what he was saying and at the same time, keep others from fully comprehending. Matthew’s audience was Jewish. Anyway, below I copied something that I had remembered but someone else posted, so I just copied their post below. But one of the statements is from St. Augustine:

I do not discount Peter’s pre-eminence among the apostles. I agree, however, with St. John Chrysostom (among others), who said ''wherein Christ says, ‘And I say unto you, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;’ that is, on the faith of his confession, (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200154.htm)"

and Augustine, "“In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. (Source:The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1.)” and again,

“And I tell you…‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ…Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. (Source: John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327.)”

Are you suggesting we throw Matthew out? Matthew was using techniques to prevent some from comprehending, the Gospels? Was Matthew’s writings not God inspired?

Do you think the Jews understood the authority to bind and loose? It was Jewish language used as ‘forbidding and permitting’.

Now read John’s account of Peter being singled out again. Read it in light of Matthew 16.

Now, in refernce to St. Augustine’s writing. You cannot separate the confession from Peter. It was because of his confession that Christ accepted the Father’s decision, who revealed the answer to Peter, and built His Church upon Peter. That is what St. Augustine is saying. Just because the terminology is ‘built on a confession of faith’ it does not exclude Peter’s preeminence.

Here’s more that St. Augustine wrote:

Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

The bias is showing in the interpretations of St. Augustine’s writings, provided, when the translator chooses to call Peter, ‘Rocky’.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yet at the earliest example of Christ’s church, which was in Jerusalem not Rome, in a council meeting where Peter was present, James presided. And Paul said that Peter ate with the Gentiles, until some came from James to challenge him? That does not sound like a man “at the head” of the church.

I don’t think Peter’s authority among the disciples is in question by anyone.

Emphasis in the first quote is mine.

 

[MuddyRocker]

Muddy, U are right, Paul did call Peter out on this rightfully so. Peter was not infalliable here, but this was a matter of DISCIPLINE and NOT DOCTRINE. A pope is not impeccable meaning does not sin. But a pope IS infalliable on matters of doctrine of faith and morals. This was a matter of discipline and Paul rightfully called Peter out on not wanting to eat with the Gentiles. An example of Peter being infalliable is in Acts when the have a council (sounds very Catholic) on whether on not circumcision is needed and all the Apostles(bishops) brought it to Peter in a council (Pope or aka a bishop also) and as Peter spoke infalliably saying the need for circumcision from the Old Law is no longer needed because of Christ and his new covenant and NOBODY spoke or asked questions. There was an example of Peter being infalliable on morals and faith.

I understand your point of being infallible in matters of doctrine of faith and morals. But tell me, how is the question of dietary laws etc discipline and circumcision doctrine? And you are substituting the word (bishops) for Apostles? (now that would sound very Catholic!) It was not a matter of discipline deciding what to eat and who not to eat with for a Jew. It was a matter of Torah. As was circumcision. And no one can present a legitimate case that Peter was ever a Bishop or a Pope. He was indeed leader of the Apostles, but in his day, Jerusalem was the “mother” church so to speak. And James was the leader of the Jerusalem church. Granted, the church at Rome grew more rapidly because of the population of the city and the number of diaspora Jews even outnumbering Jews in Jerusalem; especially after the destruction of the Temple, etc. Peter did defend Paul’s stand on circumcision for the Gentile believers, I believe after Paul called him out. However, if Peter was Bishop or even the Pope, why would not one of the gospel writers say so - especially Luke? I don’t mean by a passage that can be interpreted as meaning something else. If he were a Bishop, why not say “Peter, Bishop of Rome”? If Peter were the head of the church, why would James preside over - not just agree with as someone else suggested - the scriptures say he presided over the council?

Peace!

 

[MuddyRocker]

Jesus did not SAY, I am rock and upon myself I built my Church.

There are many scriptures that refer to Christ as the corner stone. You know, that the ‘builder rejected’. A building cannot stand without the corner stone. The rock is the foundation. Christ is the head of His body, which is His Church.

Just for the record. The rock is the foundation. But it is actually a reference to the rock which covered the hole leading to Sheol on which David had Solomon build the Temple. Read your Midrash.

 

[ricko]

Yet at the earliest example of Christ’s church, which was in Jerusalem not Rome, in a council meeting where Peter was present, James presided. And Paul said that Peter ate with the Gentiles, until some came from James to challenge him? That does not sound like a man “at the head” of the church.

MuddyRocker.

It is unethical to change or alter another members post as you did to mine.(Original post #27 changed in your post #46) I will not report this at this time as you are new. However, do not do anything like that again.

 

[MuddyRocker]

Yes Constantine called the councils together, after legalizing Christianity and making it a national religion of the state. Prior to that the Churches did not operate openly as they do today. There was a penalty of death for being a Christian who would not renounce his faith.

Now the laughable, nowhere does it say so and so was a bishop.

Was Judas Iscariot the only bishop you’re aware of?

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.

All the Apostles were most certainly bishops and the verse above shows that these men realized their offices were meant to be of Apostolic succession according to scriptures!

There goes another one of those “scripture manipulations” discussed earlier. The word bishoprick is geared to make one think of the title of Bishop. But the earliest manuscripts are translated to mean “the office he holds” which in Judas’ case was treasurer according to the NT, not Bishop. The translation into the Latin “episcopatum” was corrupted into being associated with the title of Bishop. The quotes from Psalm 69 & 109 were actually used to refer to enemies of King David.

 

[MuddyRocker]

After Christ had renamed Simon to Peter, given Him the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the authority to bind and loose, He continued teaching the Apostles His ‘doctrines’. Many have denied that Peter was singled out, some only willing to concede that it was Peter’s confession that the Church was built upon.

What is the last thing the Gospel of John tells us Christ did? He appeared to the Apostles and singled Peter out, yet again. Considering the times, we know a shepherd took care of a flock. He told Peter three times to feed His sheep/lambs. Did He place any other disciple as shepherd? Did He tell any other to tend His sheep/lambs?

John recorded another discussion where Christ spoke about Him being the shepherd and His flock.

**Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.
Joh 10:12 But the hireling and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming and leaveth the sheep and flieth: and the wolf casteth and scattereth the sheep,
Joh 10:13 And the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling: and he hath no care for the sheep.
Joh 10:14 I am the good shepherd: and I know mine, and mine know me.
Joh 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep.
Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have that are not of this fold: them also I must bring. And they shall hear my voice: And there shall be one fold and one shepherd. **

Now, before the analogies arise that Peter was the hireling who fled, remember Peter was not alone when He had gone back fishing. There were other Apostles with Him, yet Christ singled him out and told Him, feed my sheep, three times. He did this in front of the other Apostles.

Did John record everything Christ did with His Apostles?

Right before writing about the Apostles going fishing, he wrote:

Joh 20:30 Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.
Joh 20:31 But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name.

He ended the story of Christ singling Peter out by writing:

**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. **

In the gospel of John, Christ singled Peter out and called him to feed his sheep three times because Peter had denied him three times. This is actually a literary technique employed by John to get his readers to see that Christ was bringing Peter back into fellowship with him and back to working for him rather than back to fishing. And John does not say he wrote these things so you would believe that Peter is the head of the church. His last statement was to let you know that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was the author of the gospel.
There is no doubt that Peter was indeed the leader of the 12. And after Pentecost, he was also a dynamic preacher and had power given to him from above. And he was of course a leader of the church. But I cannot find evidence that points to him being a Bishop, the Pope, or reason that a succession of Pope’s can claim authority based on Peter’s authority.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Just for the record. The rock is the foundation. But it is actually a reference to the rock which covered the hole leading to Sheol on which David had Solomon build the Temple. Read your Midrash.

Don’t be condescending.

Christ told Simon Bar-Jonah:

**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. **

He renamed Simon to Peter, which is English for the Greek word used for ‘rock’.

A change in name in Scripture ALWAYS came with a significant change in stature and responsibility. It wasn’t a “whim” of Christ’s to change Simon’s name to Peter. And we know that change was real, as it’s referred to throughout the NT. What is the significance of the name change, if not to designate Peter as the primate over all the followers of Christ? Note that whenever a name change was made in the OT, there was an explanation for it – Abram becomes Abraham because God will make of him a great nation. Jacob becomes Israel because he contended and had power with God and with men and prevailed. Likewise, Simon becomes Peter because upon his strength in faith the sacred community of the faithful, the Church, would be founded.

The gates of ‘hades’ or the ‘great abyss’ was located in a niche at Caesarea Philippi, the place Christ chose to announce His Church, and even the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Caesarea Philippi was known as Panion, city of the great pagan god Pan, who pagans believed ruled the world. Pan was a pagan god of shepherds, flocks and thought to be depraved. To Christians he represented evil. The altar to Pan was hidden in the cliffs below the city. The site that honored Pan exists even to present day.

Caesarea Philippi was so named by Herod Philip, in honor of the ruling caesar at the time.

Why of all the places Christ travelled, did He choose this spot to announce His Church? Because through the Church He was establishing, it is the opposite to everything that kept men from the Kingdom. Remember, the ‘abyss’ was located in a niche in the mountain, and it shall not prevail against His Church.

Christ ‘inherited’ the Davidic throne, considered by Jews to be the throne of God, as it was given to David by God. Now read Isaiah 22 and realize the keys to the kingdom left someone in charge in place of the absent king. The holder of the keys acted in place of the king and only answered to the king.

This small passage in Matthew is a very easy read, unless your reaching to make it say something else, in my opinion. Read it in light of John 21 and we see what Peter’s role was according to Christ.

Joh 21:15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
Joh 21:16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
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.

This doesn’t even take into account the symbolism of Peter, alone, pulling in the net of fish that all the Apostles together could not land, and that the net did not break!

Joh 21:8 But the other disciples came in the ship (for they were not far from the land, but as it were two hundred cubits) dragging the net with fishes.
Joh 21:9 As soon then as they came to land they saw hot coals lying, and a fish laid thereon, and bread.
Joh 21:10 Jesus saith to them: Bring hither of the fishes which you have now caught.
Joh 21:11 Simon Peter went up and drew the net to land, full of great fishes, one hundred and fifty-three. And although there were so many, the net was not broken.

St Augustine discovered—one can hardly guess how —that 10 (the commandments) and 7 (the gifts of the Holy Ghost) in the addition of the whole series 1, 2, 3 . . . 17 give exactly 153. That the net was not rent suggests the unity and integrity of the Church. The net was used by Christ himself for a parable of the kingdom of heaven.

 

[MuddyRocker]

Are you suggesting we throw Matthew out? Matthew was using techniques to prevent some from comprehending, the Gospels? Was Matthew’s writings not God inspired?

Do you think the Jews understood the authority to bind and loose? It was Jewish language used as ‘forbidding and permitting’.

Now read John’s account of Peter being singled out again. Read it in light of Matthew 16.

Now, in refernce to St. Augustine’s writing. You cannot separate the confession from Peter. It was because of his confession that Christ accepted the Father’s decision, who revealed the answer to Peter, and built His Church upon Peter. That is what St. Augustine is saying. Just because the terminology is ‘built on a confession of faith’ it does not exclude Peter’s preeminence.

Here’s more that St. Augustine wrote:

The bias is showing in the interpretations of St. Augustine’s writings, provided, when the translator chooses to call Peter, ‘Rocky’.

Matthew is my favorite book of the Bible. Throw it out - no way! And I was referring to the quote from St. Augustine, not the comments of the other writer. And yes, Matthew was employing techniques geared towards Jewish readers. That is fact - not theory. Yes, the gospels are God-inspired but still written by men using tools that they possessed, and the author of Matthew was a very skilled writer; skilled in writing technique. Jewish technique specifically; like writing the book in five parts to link it to the five books of Moses. Like using the words “kingdom of heaven” unlike the other gospels that used “kingdom of God” that would have offended Jews of his time. And many other techniques that tie his gospel to his particular Jewish audience.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

In the gospel of John, Christ singled Peter out and called him to feed his sheep three times because Peter had denied him three times. This is actually a literary technique employed by John to get his readers to see that Christ was bringing Peter back into fellowship with him and back to working for him rather than back to fishing. And John does not say he wrote these things so you would believe that Peter is the head of the church. His last statement was to let you know that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was the author of the gospel.
There is no doubt that Peter was indeed the leader of the 12. And after Pentecost, he was also a dynamic preacher and had power given to him from above. And he was of course a leader of the church. But I cannot find evidence that points to him being a Bishop, the Pope, or reason that a succession of Pope’s can claim authority based on Peter’s authority.

John does not specifically say Peter is the head of the Church, because he did not know the legal ease that would be applied to his writings.

If Judas Iscariot was considered to hold the office of bishopric, don’t you think the others did as well?

**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. **

Tell me something about John’s writings. How many times did he use the term ‘Apostles’? If he didn’t use it, does that mean the men chosen and appointed by Christ were not Apostles?

And if an office was to be filled, according to Old Testament scriptures, don’t you think these men realized they must fill their own offices at their end?

You have to read scriptures in light of scriptures. You cannot piece mill it so it appears to say what you desire it to say.

 

[MuddyRocker]

MuddyRocker.

It is unethical to change or alter another members post as you did to mine.(Original post #27 changed in your post #46) I will not report this at this time as you are new. However, do not do anything like that again.

Rick, I did nothing unethical to your post. All I did was hit the quote button and reply to it. I don’t know why it posted the way it did, but I assure you, it was not something I did to alter anything you said. I am sorry it offended you, but believe me, it was a mistake.