Peter as the Rock

[mwok]

Sheesh!

Just read the first 3 chapters of Acts!

Peter speaks for the Apostles(Jesus did)
Peter interprets scripture(Jesus did)
Peter raises someone from the dead,with Jesus’ help(Jesus did)
Peter healed a paralytic,with Jesus’ help(Jesus did)
Peter was crucified(Jesus was) note: not a requirement to be a Pope
etc,etc,etc.

 

[JustaServant]

Your arguments are merely cookie cutter arguments used over and over again to throw at anything that refutes Catholic doctrine. You have yet to show me one single Bible verse to prove that Peter is supreme and he was the first pope. You showed me 50 verses where Peter was a leader and how he shared authority amongst all the Apostles. Show me where the Bible says that he is the Supreme and Infallible head of the Church and the Vicar of Christ. Show me…

In order to answer your question you must show us where in the Bible it says that** it and it alone** is to be the sole authority.
Please find that for us.

 

[rinnie]

Ya know, it makes me laugh when I hear another explanation why the Scriptures don’t mean what they say or how we absolutely have no correct way or any idea of what Scripture says outside of your magisterium. Of all the Catholics I have ever spoken with on this subject over many many years, this is the first time I have ever heard anything remotely close to this. I don’t accept it. Sorry. If Peter was everything your church claims, then he would have been spoken of in Scripture in these ways and he simply was not. You cannot fill the void there that clearly exists. Paul never eluded to Peter being supreme in any of his Epistles. Not once. At some point here you have to admit that this isn’t an argument that can be supported by Scripture.

The Bible is also not a Catholic book. It was compiled by the Early Church, East and West together. In fact look at where those councils ended up. Carthage and Hippo both became part of the Orthodox church. So, if we wanted to be technical here, we could say that the Bible is an Orthodox book, but then we have another problem. Your canon isn’t the same as the Orthodox canon. Why?? There’s just too many voids to cover to make the Catholic argument to work.

Now this is Great! You are saying the bible it not a Catholic book, it was compiled by the Eary Church You know the Catholic Church, or is there a CHurch that existed before the Catholic Church that we are not aware of?

IF the Catholic Church was not the first Church what is comming next it was the Protestant Church Come On!!

 

[rinnie]

pritchard85:
You won’t show me by Scripture where and how it is that your church holds Peter in a Supreme and Infallible role. The heat Is On You my friend because you can’t prove it by Scripture. You won’t and you can’t. I say that as nicely as I can to you but it remains to be seen. Stop trying to play down Scripture. Just prove it.

Sure how about this one. But you will just find a way to deny it anyhow. But here it is.

acts 15:6 after much debate had taken place PETER got UP and Said to THEM. MY brothers you are WELL AWARE that from the early days GOD MADE HIS CHOICE AMONG YOU that through MY MOUTH the gentiles would HEAR the world of the gospel and believe.

Now all I hear they were all equal, God never made a choice. There it it. the true word of God. Spoken.

Peter made the decision when they could not come up with one. No one bucked him, no one argured with him, they accepted the choice that through his mouth we would be taught.

Sorry my brothers and sisters nothing has Changed. THe Pope can speak with the Bishops or by himself when he speaks in the name of God with the power he was given.

IF Peter and the Peter of today the Pope does not have authority by himself how can he alone speak in the name of God, He has twice on his own I believe, and no other Bishop ever has?

 

[campeador]

Thanks for the clarification, camp…

Strike 1…

You’re welcome my friend. Thanks to Mark Twain I’ve been in love with ‘The Maid of Orléans’ for many years.

amazon.com/Personal-Recollections-Joan-Secretary-ebook/dp/B004L9LDJ8/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2

 

[Nicea325]

In order to answer your question you must show us where in the Bible it says that** it and it alone** is to be the sole authority.
Please find that for us.

That is what he cannot answer because he has no scriptural proof for such an absurd belief. As a result, he continues to make excuses and go in circles.

 

[guanophore]

I’d say that your response is seriously flawed in that not all Protestants reject tradition and the Early Church. I don’t reject the practices that we have today that are ajoined with the Church of the Apostles (tradition). We also hold to Apostolic Succession and the authority that Jesus gave ALL his Apostles that can easily be shown in the Book of Acts.

To this extent many Protestants have retained the Apostolic faith, and are in unity with the Catholic Church established by Christ on these points.

What we protest is the notion that Jesus gave full supreme authority to Peter alone

What limitations do you see Jesus giving Peter for the care and feeding of His flock? Did he set aside certain parts of the flock that Peter was NOT to feed and care for?

and that this authority has led to the unbiblical beliefs and practices that the Roman Catholic church has today.

I have two questions about this.

Do you believe authority, in and of itself, creates problems? Your statement seems to be saying that the authority given by Christ has been the source of problems. I think it is more accurate to say that the abuse of authority has created problems.

Second, what “unbliblical beliefs and practices” do you see today?

 

[guanophore]

Does anyone here happen to know Greek so that I can directly address his comments on the gender issue of Petros/petra (which seems obviously bunk from the context alone) and then also the Greek of "soi" so that I can prove that the keys were given to Peter alone?

Yes, but I would not recommend getting into this arguement. The passage was originally written in Aramaic. Jesus said “your are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build…”

Also, though Peter was given the keys, he never used them apart from the other Apostles. They were in perfect unity (despite some of the conflicts that existed) decisions were made in council, just as they are today. The point to stress is the authority of the Magesterium. All of the successors of the Apostles share in this.

As of now, I’m planning on adding in that the Early Church Fathers spoke Greek and understood the culture and context of the verse better than we can hope to today, and that is a strong testimony to the true meaning.**

It is also important to challenge Protestants to look into scripture to see how often God has changed someone’s name, and the significance of this.

Another point to stress is that when Jesus tells Peter that they will be tested, and that he will pray for “you, that your faith my not fail”, this is said in the singular as well, so if anyone wants to pass the test, they better get in on the prayer for Peter.
ChrisB103;8257219:

Also, as a side question: Since Matthew was likely written in Aramaic, does that mean that only the Aramaic original copy can be said to be inerrant?

Yes.

Or would the Greek copy that was used in the New Testament also definitely be inerrant? My point isn’t that the Greek version has errors, but simply that it’s ideal to look at the original language to understand the meaning best.

Thanks,
Chris

Yes. It is generally accepted that the originals are the inspired and inerrant Scriptures. All we have now are copies.

It might also be useful to ask what it is about the successor of Peter that they have a problem with today. We have had such Holy Popes for the last century, it would be hard to find a beef with them.

 

[Hail_Linus]

Two more things that may be useful to you, for future conversations with a Protestant on this topic:

**John 1:42 ** (NIV)

And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter).

• “Cephas” transliterates from the Aramaic “kepha”
  -This revelation that Simon is to be renamed “Cephas” is given before Peter even confesses that Jesus is the Christ. Jesus already had a purpose for Peter.

One aspect of John 1:42 that I particularly find interesting is that this verse is like a prophesy. Jesus is sort of saying “You don’t know it yet but in the future I will call you Cephas and it won’t just be a nickname.” If it is not in reference to his role as leader of the Church then it seems to me this verse is a waste of ink. It would not have any importance. I hear all of the counter-arguments and it just leaves me feeling like they have nullified its significance and left the verse rather useless for the modern day Christian. They refute the Papacy argument but do not replace it with anything of value. If the Rock is simply Simon’s faith…then the verse has no value to the modern Christian other than an historical account of the events? I personally feel every line of scripture is very significant to Christians.

BTW, I can’t understand why the translations always spell the name as “Cephas”. I am no greek expert but in the Greek text it is written as “Kephas.” In other words, the first letter of the name in the Greek text is the Greek letter Kappa which is pronounced like a K.

 

[Saint_Anonymous]

Can someone who advocates that the Papacy is unbiblical show me a time in the Bible where God didn’t appoint one man to be the representative for His people? I only ask this because from the beginning of the Old Testament with Adam all the way to the New Testament with Peter, I see God constantly appointing one person to represent all of His chosen people. Maybe someone could explain how the Chair of Peter isn’t the New Testaments continuation of the Chair of Moses in the Old Testament?

Seriously IMHO the Papacy is so Biblical it’s beyond belief that someone would have a problem with it.

 

[guanophore]

There is no refutation to the word of God for anyone who calls themselves a Christian.

So does that mean you can show us where the Scriptures support leaving the authority appointed by Christ and starting a new church with different doctrines?

There IS however plenty of refutation to how one interprets Scripture which Paul also warns of private interpretation of Scripture.

Really? Where is that?

 It looks alot to me like you went to great lengths to put Peter ahead in almost all of those passages.

I think this would count as a “refutation of Scripture”.

In fact, all one must do is a brief review of the lists of the Apostles and the actions of Peter. All these examples come right out of Scripture. No one has to go to “great trouble” to see what is in the text. I can see how it would cause “great trouble” to those who deny the position of Peter, though. Those who wish to disregard the authority given to Peter refute it.

the whole problem is that when we look at the Scripture in its entirety, we see that Peter was in a leadership role especially in Acts but he was never proven to be supreme by Scripture.

And certainly there would not be a reason to “prove” such a thing about Peter. Peter’s authority came before the scripture, and was recognized and practiced in the early church for nearly 400 years before the New Testament was canonized.

One cannot find anywhere in Scripture a requirement that something taught by Christ must appear in Scripture. This is a common man made tradition, used in part to deny the authority appointed by Christ.

Not ever. this is precisely the root problem of your church.

How do you see that?

The Catholic Church produced the New Testament. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic. All 27 books were written by, for, and about Catholics. Now effort was ever made to produce a full compendium of the faith in it’s pages. No verse states that everything taught by the Apostles must be found in it’s pages.

The only “problem” is produced by those who attempt to base their church on the pages of the books, rather than the foundation established by Christ.

Paul opposed Peter to his face on a matter of faith and morals.

No, actually. He opposed Peter because his behavior was hypocritical. Peter was not following his own infallible teaching to the Church. Jesus promised the Church would be free from error, not that her members would be free from personal shortcomings.

Jesus only a couple sentences after Peter’s confession told Peter, “get behind me satan”.

Evidence that Jesus uses imperfect vessels to produce His perfect work.

The biggest thing which is very problematic is that Paul never once mentioned Peter in Romans. Not once.

Why would he? Why is that a problem for you?

This was also right about the time when Peter was martyerd in Rome.  Very problematic to the supremacy argument.

I think you are very confused about your early church history. Peter was not in Rome yet when the letter to Romans was written. Peter was martryed during the same persecution as Paul, when both were in Rome together.

Besides, the gifts and responsibilities given to Peter to feed and care for the flock of God were given in Palestine. They belonged to him no matter where he lived or died. I can’t imagine why it would matter what year he went to Rome.

 

[pritchard85]

The Catholic Church produced the New Testament. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic. All 27 books were written by, for, and about Catholics. Now effort was ever made to produce a full compendium of the faith in it’s pages. No verse states that everything taught by the Apostles must be found in it’s pages.

No, actually. He opposed Peter because his behavior was hypocritical. Peter was not following his own infallible teaching to the Church. Jesus promised the Church would be free from error, not that her members would be free from personal shortcomings.

Again, show me in Scripture where Peter is infallible. It’s NOT THERE.

Evidence that Jesus uses imperfect vessels to produce His perfect work.

Why would he? Why is that a problem for you?

I think you are very confused about your early church history. Peter was not in Rome yet when the letter to Romans was written. Peter was martryed during the same persecution as Paul, when both were in Rome together.

I think you are quite imprecise on YOUR History. Peter was in Rome approx. this time.

Besides, the gifts and responsibilities given to Peter to feed and care for the flock of God were given in Palestine. They belonged to him no matter where he lived or died. I can’t imagine why it would matter what year he went to Rome.

You are using verses singular to try and come up with your beliefs. It doesn’t work that way. read Scripture as a whole and it’s simply not there.

 

[Nicea325]

You are using verses singular to try and come up with your beliefs. It doesn’t work that way. read Scripture as a whole and it’s simply not there.

Okay,now I must be straight-forward,you are just plain blind and in DENIAL! I believe 50 NT verses is WHOLE enough to support the primacy of Peter. Your problem is that you want the defined terms such as primacy and infallible written within the pages. Sorry,the Bible was not written in such a manner. Where is the term “Incarnation” in the Bible?

BTW: Why have you failed to answer my question(s)? Where and when did Jesus teach the Bible was to contain EVERYTHING in order to make it true?

Show me ONE verse discussing a 27 NT CANON? PROVE IT FROM THE BIBLE-ALONE?

 

[pablope]

You are using verses singular to try and come up with your beliefs. It doesn’t work that way. read Scripture as a whole and it’s simply not there.

May I suggest some editing information so that your responses come out better.

When you click the quote button and in the response box, delete the “” at the end of the quoted response…this frees the formatting.

And if you want to respond to a particular paragraph or group of sentences in the post you are responding to, highlight the paragraph/sentences and click the quote button on the top, where the “Formatting” icons as. This is the icon to the left of the “#” icon.

Hope this helps you.

 

[Bluegoat]

Okay,now I must be straight-forward,you are just plain blind and in DENIAL! I believe 50 NT verses is WHOLE enough to support the primacy of Peter. Your problem is that you want the defined terms such as primacy and infallible written within the pages. Sorry,the Bible was not written in such a manner. Where is the term “Incarnation” in the Bible?

BTW: Why have you failed to answer my question(s)? Where and when did Jesus teach the Bible was to contain EVERYTHING in order to make it true?

Show me ONE verse discussing a 27 NT CANON? PROVE IT FROM THE BIBLE-ALONE?

No, really, it isn’t. The point, I think, he is trying to make, is proof-texting isn’t really a very good way to operate, and none of the Biblical “proofs” of Peter’s Primacy, is. They are all pretty ambiguous as far as their meaning goes. In and of themselves, they don’t do much to prove or disprove the Catholic Church’s modern claims about the papacy. What they show pretty conclusively is that Peter was the leader of the Apostles, and was kind of special in some way, and maybe even that what made him special was going to be important to the Church somehow. If you want more than that you have to go beyond the bare Biblical texts.

 

[Nicea325]

No, really, it isn’t. The point, I think, he is trying to make, is proof-texting isn’t really a very good way to operate, and none of the Biblical “proofs” of Peter’s Primacy, is. They are all pretty ambiguous as far as their meaning goes. In and of themselves, they don’t do much to prove or disprove the Catholic Church’s modern claims about the papacy. What they show pretty conclusively is that Peter was the leader of the Apostles, and was kind of special in some way, and maybe even that what made him special was going to be important to the Church somehow. If you want more than that you have to go beyond the bare Biblical texts.

Ambigous meaning? Yeah for Protestants as other verses of the Bible,which conflict with their “Johnny-come-lately” church traditions and novelties. Do you think the thousands of different denominations is living proof? I beg your pardon? Proof-texting is that what you are claiming I and others are doing? Providing more than one verse to support Peter’s primacy is not proof-texting. I have not isolated one or two or a few verses;moreover, I gave a few out FIFTY NT verses.What do you call it? Coincidence? Is it proof-texting too if I proivide score after score of ECF’s all saying the same about Peter? Sorry,but you are wrong about proof-texting. I’ll give you an example of proof-texting:

2 Tim 3:16 to prove Sola Scriptura. That is proof-texting.

If you want more than that you have to go beyond the bare Biblical texts

I did…they are called ECF’s.Are they also proof-texing? Unless you want to rebuke the ECF who all believe in the same about Peter’s primacy? By all means,be my guest,I am game. What more do you people need?

 

[Bluegoat]

Ambigous meaning? Yeah for Protestants as other verses of the Bible,which conflict with their “Johnny-come-lately” church traditions and novelties. Do you think the thousands of different denominations is living proof? I beg your pardon? Proof-texting is that what you are claiming I and others are doing? Providing more than one verse to support Peter’s primacy is not proof-texting. I have not isolated one or two or a few verses;moreover, I gave a few out FIFTY NT verses.What do you call it? Coincidence? Is it proof-texting too if I proivide score after score of ECF’s all saying the same about Peter? Sorry,but you are wrong about proof-texting. I’ll give you an example of proof-texting:

2 Tim 3:16 to prove Sola Scriptura. That is proof-texting.

If you want more than that you have to go beyond the bare Biblical texts

I did…they are called ECF’s.Are they also proof-texing? Unless you want to rebuke the ECF who all believe in the same about Peter’s primacy? By all means,be my guest,I am game. What more do you people need?

Well, no, not just ambiguous for Protestants. Do you really think that someone just looking at those texts with no other reference could say they show the modern papacy? Do you really believe that all non-Catholics are so uneducated and silly that they cannot see something so obvious? Do you realize that there are non-Catholics who are respected patristics scholars and historians that don’t see it as obvious? In fact, that Catholic scholars don’t see it as obvious?

If it were obvious, why wouldn’t the papacy have sprung into it’s fully formed state right in the beginning, or very close to it? Why do we not see the kinds of powers it now claims for itself used until much later? If it were obvious, would it have caused so much friction with all the other patriachs, and the Great Schism?

I can never understand why people think when great Christan saints, scholars, and leaders, all with good intentions, cannot come to agreement on this, it is really as simple and obvious as a string of Biblical verses and a quote mine from the EFCs.

 

[pritchard85]

Okay,now I must be straight-forward,you are just plain blind and in DENIAL! I believe 50 NT verses is WHOLE enough to support the primacy of Peter. Your problem is that you want the defined terms such as primacy and infallible written within the pages. Sorry,the Bible was not written in such a manner. Where is the term “Incarnation” in the Bible?

BTW: Why have you failed to answer my question(s)? Where and when did Jesus teach the Bible was to contain EVERYTHING in order to make it true?

I have asked you over and over to prove Peter’s supremacy and yet you give me 50 separate verses of Scripture that mention Peter in roles in conjunction with the other Apostles which IS SO VERY BIBLICAL!!! as Christ gave authority to all the Apostles. Read the Book of Acts my friend. Read it. You See ALL the Apostles exercising the authority given to them by Christ. What YOU NEVER EVER SEE is Peter being shown to be Supreme and Infallible. COME ON NICEA. SHOW ME WHERE IT IS. Your church claims it, but yet it isn’t anywhere in Scripture. It’s ON YOU to show it and prove it. YOU CANNOT!!

 

[pritchard85]

Well, no, not just ambiguous for Protestants. Do you really think that someone just looking at those texts with no other reference could say they show the modern papacy? Do you really believe that all non-Catholics are so uneducated and silly that they cannot see something so obvious? Do you realize that there are non-Catholics who are respected patristics scholars and historians that don’t see it as obvious? In fact, that Catholic scholars don’t see it as obvious?

If it were obvious, why wouldn’t the papacy have sprung into it’s fully formed state right in the beginning, or very close to it? Why do we not see the kinds of powers it now claims for itself used until much later? If it were obvious, would it have caused so much friction with all the other patriachs, and the Great Schism?

Thank you for your insight on this! Has it ever occured to them that anyone who isn’t Catholic isn’t necessarily a moron or has no insight as to what the Early Church practiced?? I’ve been here not even a week and I find it apalling the condescentment that is cast in these forums.

 

[pritchard85]

May I suggest some editing information so that your responses come out better.

When you click the quote button and in the response box, delete the "

Thank you. Is this better?