Petra and Petros...?

[JohnVIII]

Because your source is a Johnny come lately book long after the death of the last apostle it never meets the Early Church’s council of canonized books thus your quote is not considered “inspired of God” and bears no authenticity of teaching upon Christianity.

Is the reason that you don’t say the same thing about “The Clementine Homilies” that was quoted by [user]GaryTaylor[/user] back in post #59 is because it happens to have a reference were Peter boasted of how he was the foundation of the Church? If there were a similar verse in The Gospel According to Thomas would that somehow give it more credence?

The The Gospel According to Thomas is not a Gospel at all (I don’t know how it got that name) it is simply a listing of sayings of Jesus. Maybe they were things that Jesus said and maybe they are not, but what it is not is a “Johnny come lately book”. On the other hand The Clementine Homilies are about how a sorcerer named Simon Magus came to deceive Romans with his magical powers until Simon Peter came to Rome to get into a magical fight with Simon Magus and killed him one day when Simon Magus was fighting through the air Simon Peter used his powers to make him fall to his death. It also speaks of how Simon Peter preached to all in Rome that they should be refrain from sex with their husbands and wives and this make the men of Rome so mad the they killed Simon Peter by crucifixion. But this book somehow becomes credible simply because it says:

The Clementine Homilies (C. 221)
“[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]” (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).

Apart from this, Who is Jesus addressing? Well if Jesus is presently speaking their are only Jewish converts, thus these must go to James who is bishop of Jerusalem, the time frame of Thomas Gospel is too late because;

God revealed to Peter not James from the God breathed book of Acts to allow the Gentiles into the Church via baptism not circumcision, long before the gospel of Thomas surfaced.

Besides it is not clear that James the Righteous was the bishop of Jerusalem? So your Thomas Gospel is not speaking of the James who spoke at the council of Jerusalem.

James the Righteous, or James the Just, is the same person who was the first Bishop of Jerusalem. And why do you think that when he is referenced together with St Peter he is always listed BEFORE St Peter, as it “And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars” (Galatians 2:9)

Also, may I ask why St Peter would even go to Rome when Paul said, “the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter” (Galatians 2:7). Wouldn’t it make more sense to believe that St Peter worked under James to minister to the Jews? Just asking

You are misunderstanding the authority Jesus gave Peter in the keys to bind and loose. Peter heard all the councils statements. Then proclaimed “infallibly” what heaven revealed to him for the whole Church which is still binding on all Christians today unchanged.

Peter did not pass any judgement upon James community, That is for James to do, not Peter. James follows Peter’s revelation from heaven with James disciplines. James disciplines were binding on all believers, Peter’s revelation becomes binding on all believers and still does to this day unchanged.

See this is where the leaps and the reaching start. The only part that Peter played was to reveal to the counsel what God revealed to him. Everyone knew that Peter was a prophet as well as an apostle, so no one is going to question what Peter had to say. But nothing was “binding” until James ruled it so and ordered an epistle to be written and sent to all the Churches of the Gentiles.

Peter is the Rock that is the foundation of the Church and the Roman Popes are the successors of this Rock. But as far as getting into these more modern day ideas of such as “infallibility”, I say that is going too far. St Peter himself referred to things like this as “a more sure word of prophecy” (2nd Peter 1:19). Now there is a difference in degree between “a more sure word of prophecy” and “infallibility”.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Exactly, as so today. Which brings us to Constantinople. Council of Nicea.

So we have the Council of Jerusalem, Now what “exactly” was said at Nicea? Peter was the “proto”…“first,” “foremost,” “earliest form of,” “original”.

“Light of the World”…Pope Benedict XVI 2010.

Course why would we want to listen to him or the Council of Nicea, or the Bible.

Here’s the paragraph is dispute…Canon-6

“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail: that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges…”

Correct interpretation…

“Let the Bishop of Alexandria continue to govern these provinces, because this is also the Roman Pontiff’s custom; that is, because the Roman Pontiff, prior to any synodical enactment, has repeatedly recognized the Alexandrian Bishop’s authority over this tract of country”. Fr James F. Loughlin in reference to Ireneaus

According to this interpretation, the canon shows the role the Bishop of Rome had when he, by his authority, confirmed the jurisdiction of the other patriarchs. An interpretation which is in line with the Roman Catholic understanding of the Pope.

Canon 6 is saying that Alexandria and Antioch are to have a regional primacy in the same manner as Rome’s regional primacy. It was from the authority of the council, not the authority of the pope of Rome (by the way, the title pope originally belonged to the patriarch of Alexandria, not Rome; Rome later took the title pope for herself and to this day denies the patriarch of Alexandria the same title), that the three sees had their regional primacy made official.

Which is “why” Pope Benedict use’s the term “proto”.

Alexandria was the “cause” of the council. There the Arian heresy grew. The council corrected the heresy by all in agreement… except “two”.

Thus Canon 6 gives back the Bishop of Alexandria authority to govern his province. Which btw creates further problem’s with yet more Arian heresy. Which is alive and growing in the US today.

This is an incorrect and anachronistic reading of canon 6. Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria never had his authority revoked by the bishop of Rome, nor did St. Athanasius, who succeeded Alexander, have his authority granted to him by the bishop of Rome. The text of Canon 6 seems to make it pretty clear that the regional primacy of Alexandria, Antioch and Rome was already an established custom that was being made formal by the council.

This “Custom” was derived by the Bishop of Rome …thus “likewise” the other provinces retain their authority which “btw” came from who? Oh that would be…ROME.

The fact all the churchs had the rule of their own Province is not of consequence. All are subject to be in communion with Rome. No-one wants to “run” or have “authority” over your church. If that had been the concern why would Rome have built Constantinople?

The purpose was to all be in “communion” and help each other. The fact that churchs make mistakes such as the Copts or Alexandra is not of consequence either. Thats why we have the councils to correct the error.

Well, the problem is that you seem to believe that “retain their authority” is in the original text of canon 6, when it is not. The bishop of Rome never had the authority to remove the authority of Alexandria and Antioch, nor did he ever have the authority to give them their authority. That is simply reading something into canon 6 which is not there.

As far as Petra and Petros, its a moot arguement. The first to be converted where the Jews. As problems occured the Gentiles became the focus. Who spoke Greek? Here’s the reason we see the language introduced. The first and correct language is Cehpas or Kephas. Which has no different meaning. Nor do you see this by any early church fathers. The fact St Augustine is used is really something, and what year did he live?

354-430 AD. Does the fact that he’s post-Nicene (and a gentile who wouldn’t have known the original context in Aramaic) mean that his exegesis is worthless? Perhaps you should tread carefully and realize that you’re talking about saint who is considered to be a doctor of your own Church.

Who chose an Apostle to replace Judas…St Peter. Whys thats? Ummm, maybe because He is the Apostle chosen through Divine Providence to lead the Church which is the Mystical Body of Christ. St Peter, Prince of the Apostles!!! His name appears 182 times in scripture. Maybe you should count how many James appears Of course that wouldn’t have any significance. Amazing what selective reading will do when you choose to hear what you want. Thats called not following the Bible but yourself according to St Jerome and St Augustine.

May the Lord forgive you for insulting the memory of James, His brother, with such a petty comment. James proclaims in Acts that it is his judgment because he, as the leader of the Christian community in Jerusalem, had the right to make such a judgment. Perhaps you should try actually reading the text on the surface without already having a conclusion to support before you accuse others of, “hearing what they want.” Your insulting accusation is especially preposterous because I’m not the one who has something I want to hear from Acts 15; you are. Your own accusation is equally (if not more so) applicable to yourself.

 

[joe370]

Cavaradossi, what were your answers to post #1?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Cavaradossi, what were your answers to post #1?

That the issue is irrelevant at best. The whole Petros/Petra thing is based on a peculiarity of Greek which doesn’t exist in Aramaic, but we cannot deny that there are valid interpretations (like St. Augustine’s) which make use of this sort of play on words that exists in the Greek but could not have existed in the Aramaic. I honestly think that one shouldn’t deny that any of the interpretations (the Rock is Christ, the Rock is Peter, the Rock is Peter’s faith) are correct, as there are different Church Fathers who all put forth such views in their different exegeses. I feel that doing so (discrediting interpretations based on the Greek) is throwing out the patristic baby with the bathwater so to speak, as a majority of the exegeses we have from the fathers are either commentary on the Latin Vulgate or the Greek New Testament and Septuagint.

Why people would say they (that is, those who prefer to say that Christ or Peter’s faith could also be the Rock) got it wrong on this one verse because of linguistic issues but then accept the rest of their interpretations of the scriptures is a bit of a mystery to me. Either we must accept the Greek Gospel of Mathew (and all translations derived from it) as being inerrant scripture, or we must admit that it is merely a translation (which can err) of some inerrant Aramaic Gospel of Matthew which has been lost to time. We can’t just pick and choose what parts of the Greek scriptures (from which all of our scriptures, Latin, English, Slavonic, etc. are derived) are inspired and which parts are not.

 

[joe370]

Cavaradossi;8531475]That the issue is irrelevant at best. The whole Petros/Petra thing is based on a peculiarity of Greek which doesn’t exist in Aramaic, but we cannot deny that there are valid interpretations (like St. Augustine’s) which make use of this sort of play on words that exists in the Greek but could not have existed in the Aramaic. I honestly think that one shouldn’t deny that any of the interpretations (the Rock is Christ, the Rock is Peter, the Rock is Peter’s faith) are correct, as there are different Church Fathers who all put forth such views in their different exegeses. I feel that doing so (discrediting interpretations based on the Greek) is throwing out the patristic baby with the bathwater so to speak, as a majority of the exegeses we have from the fathers are either commentary on the Latin Vulgate or the Greek New Testament and Septuagint.

Even the CCC says:

424 - “Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.”

Why people would say they (that is, those who prefer to say that Christ or Peter’s faith could also be the Rock) got it wrong on this one verse because of linguistic issues but then accept the rest of their interpretations of the scriptures is a bit of a mystery to me

Agreed.

. Either we must accept the Greek Gospel of Mathew (and all translations derived from it) as being inerrant scripture, or we must admit that it is merely a translation (which can err) of some inerrant Aramaic Gospel of Matthew which has been lost to time. We can’t just pick and choose what parts of the Greek scriptures (from which all of our scriptures, Latin, English, Slavonic, etc. are derived) are inspired and which parts are not.

So we do agree that Jesus said: You are rock (not small stone) and on this rock…?

If you get the time could you maybe provide the quotes of the ECF’s saying that the church is built on Peter’s confession? I believe you are right which is why I figured you already had them at your disposal.

Thanks friend…

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

joe370;8531537]:If you get the time could you maybe provide the quotes of the ECF’s saying that the church is built on Peter’s confession? I believe you are right which is why I figured you already had them at your disposal.

Thanks friend…

Hey joe, Peter did not make the confession; Simon bar jona made the confession, Jesus changed Simon bar jona’s name to Peter = Kephas = Rock.

It was Peter who denied Jesus 3 times. Jesus built His church upon Peter not Peter’s faith. Although the faith professed from Simon bar jona is the sign given from heaven that Jesus begins His work on Peter.

So too does the Church teach from this profession of faith now made Peter, from this same profession of fatih we enter baptism a change takes place in the believer.

Just food for thought.

 

[joe370]

Hey Gabriel…

Gabriel of 12;8531691]Hey joe, Peter did not make the confession; Simon bar jona made the confession, Jesus changed Simon bar jona’s name to Peter = Kephas = Rock.

Agreed.

It was Peter who denied Jesus 3 times. Jesus built His church upon Peter not Peter’s faith. Although the faith professed from Simon bar jona is the sign given from heaven that Jesus begins His work on Peter.

No doubt about that brother.

So too does the Church teach from this profession of faith now made Peter, from this same profession of fatih we enter baptism a change takes place in the believer.

Just food for thought.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

JohnVIII;8530941]Is the reason that you don’t say the same thing about “The Clementine Homilies” that was quoted by [user]GaryTaylor[/user] back in post #59 is because it happens to have a reference were Peter boasted of how he was the foundation of the Church? If there were a similar verse in The Gospel According to Thomas would that somehow give it more credence?

I understand your point. Even if an outside canon source agree’s with revealed Apostolic Tradition or Sacred Scripture, it is never constituted “inspired of God” or meeting the canon, this was my emphasis.

The The Gospel According to Thomas is not a Gospel at all (I don’t know how it got that name) it is simply a listing of sayings of Jesus. Maybe they were things that Jesus said and maybe they are not, but what it is not is a “Johnny come lately book”. On the other hand The Clementine Homilies are about how a sorcerer named Simon Magus came to deceive Romans with his magical powers until Simon Peter came to Rome to get into a magical fight with Simon Magus and killed him one day when Simon Magus was fighting through the air Simon Peter used his powers to make him fall to his death. It also speaks of how Simon Peter preached to all in Rome that they should be refrain from sex with their husbands and wives and this make the men of Rome so mad the they killed Simon Peter by crucifixion. But this book somehow becomes credible simply because it says:

The Gospel according to Thomas also reveals a secret from the agnostics that God really is not going to punish anybody. I don’t see the corrolation here, what does this have to do with Petra and Petros?

James the Righteous, or James the Just, is the same person who was the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

Who is James the greater and James the Lesser? Did not Jesus have a brother named James. Your James theory becomes Debatable to the exact James. Never the less, no pun intended, a James was bishop of Jersusalem.

And why do you think that when he is referenced together with St Peter he is always listed BEFORE St Peter, as it “And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars” (Galatians 2:9)

I disagree with you, There are 3 Gospel writers ( witnesses ) who list Peter first before James, Matthew 17:1-9, Mark 9:2-13 and Luke because when ever it counted Jesus placed Peter first in his Transfiguration when it was revealed about His exodus.

Luke 9:27** Truly I say to you**, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.”28 About eight days after he said this, he took Peter, John, and James and went up the mountain to pray

Also, may I ask why St Peter would even go to Rome when Paul said, “the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter” (Galatians 2:7). Wouldn’t it make more sense to believe that St Peter worked under James to minister to the Jews? Just asking

Your theory falls apart here; For one Jesus gave Peter the keys and the command to feed, teach and tend His flock, not to be an assistant to James the bishop of Jerusalem.

Later Jesus calls Paul to evangelize the Gentiles a thorn which satan pricked his side with. Only before hand God had already spoken to Peter to allow the Gentiles into the Church via baptism. Paul went to Jerusalem to confirm with Peter about his Gentile ministry. You forget that the Gospel must be preached to the Jews first, this Peter did at Pentecost.

You do remember Paul’s statement after his conversion went to see Kephas =Rock the name Paul called Peter. If Peter was under James then why did Peter apoint Judas successor and not James. If Peter was under James why did Peter apoint Bishops in Antioch, Mark in Alexandria. Why do we find Peter speaking to the Jews first after Pentecost and not James?

James became the overseer after Peter baptized the many Jews in Jerusalem. Peter moved on to Rome fnally to confront the beast Ceasar. Paul celebrated evangelist went to the Gentiles and appealed to Ceasar’s courts. Peter head of the Christian “the way” went to the head of Rome to give witness to the Ceasar leadership.

This James of Jerusalem was beheaded long before Peter reached Rome.

See this is where the leaps and the reaching start. The only part that Peter played was to reveal to the counsel what God revealed to him.

I agree and after Peter spoke God’s revelation all fell silent and the case is closed. Now all is needed is signs and wonders to confirm Peter’s infallible teaching from heaven and disciplines are put in place so that each bishop obeys heaven through Peter’s revelation.

Peter is the Rock that is the foundation of the Church and the Roman Popes are the successors of this Rock. But as far as getting into these more modern day ideas of such as “infallibility”, I say that is going too far.

So because Peter taught the council of Jerusalem not to burden the Gentile converts with circumcision. His revelation from heaven is not infallible? If Peter’s teaching was not infallible then why does it remain today in the whole Church? And why doesn’t James disciplines recorded in the letter to the other Church’s do not remain in the Whole church today? Could it be James disciplines are not infallible? And Peter’s teaching remain infallible?

Infallibility is the guarantee protection from the Holy Spirit that Jesus revelations and teachings remain infallible, when Peter speaks or has spoken on faith and morals, these Papal infallible teachings will never contradict Sacred Scripture/ Sacred Tradition. If your adding more to infallibility than what Jesus Christ has revealed, then you are making it up yourself or someone is tickling your ear with falsehoods.

Peace be with you

 

[Marybeloved]

Is the reason that you don’t say the same thing about “The Clementine Homilies” that was quoted by [user]GaryTaylor[/user] back in post #59 is because it happens to have a reference were Peter boasted of how he was the foundation of the Church? If there were a similar verse in The Gospel According to Thomas would that somehow give it more credence?

Perhaps credence would be if that quotation supported what is in the scriptures rather than create a totally new claim that appears nowhere in scripture? Just curious though, where else is that story found apart from that Gospel of Thomas?

James the Righteous, or James the Just, is the same person who was the first Bishop of Jerusalem. And why do you think that when he is referenced together with St Peter he is always listed BEFORE St Peter, as it “And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars” (Galatians 2:9)

No my friend- Now this right here would definitely be reaching/leaping, as you put it;Consider these verses- which are far from exhaustive of all the verses that show the same thing

Matthew 17:1 After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves.
Matthew 26:37 He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled.
Mark 5:37 He did not let anyone follow him except Peter, James and John the brother of James.
Mark 9:2 After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them.
Mark 13:3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, **Peter, James, John and Andrew **asked him privately,
Luke 9:28 About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray.
Acts 1:13 When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.

etc etc.

 

[Marybeloved]

Also, may I ask why St Peter would even go to Rome when Paul said, “the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter” (Galatians 2:7).

My friend, I’m sure you know that there was a very large Jewish diaspora all over the Roman empire, right? Haven’t you read of how St. Paul in his missions always went to the synanogues and the Jews of the place he visited before he turned his attention to the Gentiles? And what about the many tongues of the Jewish pilgrims during Pentecost? There was a very sizeable Jewish population in the city of Rome, from secular historical sources.

Besides, St Peter’s narrow ministry to the Jews could not supersede his place in the whole church as the rock, holder of the keys and chief of the Apostles. It was very fitting that he would finally take his seat at the center of the world at that time.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to believe that St Peter worked under James to minister to the Jews? Just asking

Absolutely not! Read Acts, my friend- It’s very clear who takes up the leadership in Jerusalem after the birth of the Church and before St. Peter escapes Prison and is forced to flee to Antioch.

And your claims about James are based on that one line in Galatians where James is mentioned before Peter and the Gospel of Thomas? My friend, you are in no place to accuse us of “reaching”.

See this is where the leaps and the reaching start. The only part that Peter played was to reveal to the counsel what God revealed to him.

This is simply not true! St. Peter had long revealed what God had told him to the Church before this council! That’s why there were Gentiles in the Church to begin with! This was not a debate about whether Gentiles were to be included but whether they were obligated to live like their Jewish brothers. St. Peter went much further and taught about the salvation of all being by grace thereby making the mosaic law totally unnecessary.

Nothing about our understanding contradicts the text in any way at all. The only reason you and Cavaraddosi accuse us or reaching/leaping/distortion is because your own assumptions/understanding about the text are different- nothing more .

Everyone knew that Peter was a prophet as well as an apostle, so no one is going to question what Peter had to say.

Yet no one had any qualms about fighting the apostle to the Gentiles on this matter pertaining to Gentiles, did they? That’s why Paul was in Jerusalem- His teaching on the lack of necessity of circumcision was rejected- until St. Peter proclaimed it to the council and brought the debate to an abrupt end. Besides, there was much debate- certainly they felt free to contradict the Apostles, except after Peter got up and spoke.

But nothing was “binding” until James ruled it so and ordered an epistle to be written and sent to all the Churches of the Gentiles.

Peter did teach- His teaching was binding and that is why no one dared to contradict him after he had taught. And this when the issue had been so heated both at Antioch and Jerusalem. And his teaching remains forever. James added nothing to his teaching but merely added that God willed to make a people of himself from the Gentiles- A matter that had been long accepted and was not even in dispute at this council. He made a changeable disciplinary rule based on this teaching- He did not even seek a vote (remember this was a council) because apparently after Peter spoke, there remained only one position.

Peter is the Rock that is the foundation of the Church and the Roman Popes are the successors of this Rock. But as far as getting into these more modern day ideas of such as “infallibility”, I say that is going too far. St Peter himself referred to things like this as “a more sure word of prophecy” (2nd Peter 1:19). Now there is a difference in degree between “a more sure word of prophecy” and “infallibility”.

Yet no one can deny that he did teach the council, and his teaching is true now as it was when he taught and shall remain unchanged- Or that his teaching was totally accepted without any argument at all and effectively ended any further debate.

Peace!

 

[Cavaradossi]

Hey joe, Peter did not make the confession; Simon bar jona made the confession, Jesus changed Simon bar jona’s name to Peter = Kephas = Rock.

It was Peter who denied Jesus 3 times. Jesus built His church upon Peter not Peter’s faith. Although the faith professed from Simon bar jona is the sign given from heaven that Jesus begins His work on Peter.

So too does the Church teach from this profession of faith now made Peter, from this same profession of fatih we enter baptism a change takes place in the believer.

Just food for thought.

But that’s my favorite thing about Peter. Even though he denied Christ, he had the humility to seek forgiveness, unlike Judas who in despair hanged himself. Peter’s faith in the Lord surely must have been strong for him to have returned to ask Him for forgiveness. The entire, “Peter do you love me?” narrative (asked three times, paralleling his threefold denial of Christ) is probably one of the most touching parts of the Gospels, along with Jesus weeping as he is about to resurrect Lazarus from the dead. I don’t think it shows any weakness of faith in Peter, rather his willingness to pick himself up and continue after he denied Christ shows the strength of his determination and his faith that the Lord would forgive him. He is an example for all of us who deny Christ daily with our numerous sins.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

But that’s my favorite thing about Peter. Even though he denied Christ, he had the humility to seek forgiveness, unlike Judas who in despair hanged himself. Peter’s faith in the Lord surely must have been strong for him to have returned to ask Him for forgiveness. The entire, “Peter do you love me?” narrative (asked three times, paralleling his threefold denial of Christ) is probably one of the most touching parts of the Gospels, along with Jesus weeping as he is about to resurrect Lazarus from the dead. I don’t think it shows any weakness of faith in Peter, rather his willingness to pick himself up and continue after he denied Christ shows the strength of his determination and his faith that the Lord would forgive him. He is an example for all of us who deny Christ daily with our numerous sins.

That’s a beautiful insertion to the topic regarding Peter’s faith. Yet after Peter’s 3 fold repentative response to Jesus in the different “Loves”. Jesus gives Peter a command to feed, teach and tend His flock, this authority was placed upon Peter alone after the resurrection and before Jesus ascended into heaven leaving Peter with the keys and the command to shepherd Jesus flock on earth.

What I find fascinating is that Jesus found the greatest faith in all of Israel from a Gentile Centurion see Luke 7:9 When Jesus heard this he was amazed at him and, turning, said to the crowd following him, “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.”

Long before Simon bar jona’s profession of faith of Jesus being the Son of God, Nathanael had already professed Jesus to be the Son of God long before Simon bar jona professed Jesus divinity. John 1:49 Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.”*

Jesus did not build His Church on a virtue of Faith alone which can deny Him 3 times. Jesus never trusted man’s praise here;

John 5:39You search* the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf.c 40But you do not want to come to me to have life.

Unbelief of Jesus’ Hearers. 41**“I do not accept human praise;* **42moreover, I know that you do not have the love of God in you.d 43I came in the name of my Father, but you do not accept me; yet if another comes in his own name, you will accept him.e 44How can you believe, when you accept praise from one another and do not seek the praise that comes from the only God?

Jesus built His Church “upon Peter” just as His Word states. Jesus never states I will build my church upon Peter’s faith, but upon Peter himself because Jesus will be with him until the end of the age. It is Peter who will never taste death until they see the Kingdom of God because Peter lives in the Popes with unbroken apostolic succession to today.

Luke 9:27 **Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.” **
28 About eight days after he said this, he took Peter, John, and James and went up the mountain to pray.

Peace be with you

 

[JohnVIII]

I understand your point. Even if an outside canon source agree’s with revealed Apostolic Tradition or Sacred Scripture, it is never constituted “inspired of God” or meeting the canon, this was my emphasis.

The Gospel according to Thomas also reveals a secret from the agnostics that God really is not going to punish anybody. I don’t see the corrolation here, what does this have to do with Petra and Petros?

Who is James the greater and James the Lesser? Did not Jesus have a brother named James. Your James theory becomes Debatable to the exact James. Never the less, no pun intended, a James was bishop of Jersusalem.

I disagree with you, There are 3 Gospel writers ( witnesses ) who list Peter first before James, Matthew 17:1-9, Mark 9:2-13 and Luke because when ever it counted Jesus placed Peter first in his Transfiguration when it was revealed about His exodus.

Luke 9:27** Truly I say to you**, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.”28 About eight days after he said this, he took Peter, John, and James and went up the mountain to pray

Your theory falls apart here; For one Jesus gave Peter the keys and the command to feed, teach and tend His flock, not to be an assistant to James the bishop of Jerusalem.

Later Jesus calls Paul to evangelize the Gentiles a thorn which satan pricked his side with. Only before hand God had already spoken to Peter to allow the Gentiles into the Church via baptism. Paul went to Jerusalem to confirm with Peter about his Gentile ministry. You forget that the Gospel must be preached to the Jews first, this Peter did at Pentecost.

You do remember Paul’s statement after his conversion went to see Kephas =Rock the name Paul called Peter. If Peter was under James then why did Peter apoint Judas successor and not James. If Peter was under James why did Peter apoint Bishops in Antioch, Mark in Alexandria. Why do we find Peter speaking to the Jews first after Pentecost and not James?

James became the overseer after Peter baptized the many Jews in Jerusalem. Peter moved on to Rome fnally to confront the beast Ceasar. Paul celebrated evangelist went to the Gentiles and appealed to Ceasar’s courts. Peter head of the Christian “the way” went to the head of Rome to give witness to the Ceasar leadership.

This James of Jerusalem was beheaded long before Peter reached Rome.

I agree and after Peter spoke God’s revelation all fell silent and the case is closed. Now all is needed is signs and wonders to confirm Peter’s infallible teaching from heaven and disciplines are put in place so that each bishop obeys heaven through Peter’s revelation.

So because Peter taught the council of Jerusalem not to burden the Gentile converts with circumcision. His revelation from heaven is not infallible? If Peter’s teaching was not infallible then why does it remain today in the whole Church? And why doesn’t James disciplines recorded in the letter to the other Church’s do not remain in the Whole church today? Could it be James disciplines are not infallible? And Peter’s teaching remain infallible?

Infallibility is the guarantee protection from the Holy Spirit that Jesus revelations and teachings remain infallible, when Peter speaks or has spoken on faith and morals, these Papal infallible teachings will never contradict Sacred Scripture/ Sacred Tradition. If your adding more to infallibility than what Jesus Christ has revealed, then you are making it up yourself or someone is tickling your ear with falsehoods.

Peace be with you

I can’t go through this response to my posting and comment because you have got several things in it mixed up. May I try to just straiten out the matter of the various people names “James” in the New Testament.

First of all really no one in the New Testament has the name “James”. The name is Jacob, not James. King James wanted a name for himself that was in the Bible, but rather than changing his name he ordered that the King James version of the Bible have his name inserted by replacing Jacob in the New Testament to James. All other English translations (that I know of) followed suit and so we have “James” instead. But what the hay, I’ll use “James”…

The references you gave for "Peter, James, and John in Matthew 17:1-9, Mark 9:2-13 was not the same James that was Bishop of Jerusalem. That one was one of the sons of Zebedee and he was the first Apostle to die of martyrdom by the sword. James the Just, on the other hand was the Bishop of Jerusalem and he was the half-brother of Jesus. The Orthodox call him the “Brother of God”. James, the son of Zebedee, was already dead by the time that St Paul used the phrase I earlier quoted from Galatians 2:9 “And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars…”. This James (in Galatians 2:9) is the Bishop of Jerusalem and he is always listed first before “Cephas” or John! The reason for this is clear, James had MORE authority than the Rock, aka Cephas, aka St Peter.

The authority of St Peter is a teaching authority, he was not a ruler over the Church. Once again, the foundation of the Church is not the beginning and the end, the first and the last, the alpha and the omega! Peter was made the foundation of the Church (according to the Greek Matthew), but every calling in the Church is needed, Peter’s calling is important, but it is not the only calling, nor was it even the highest calling (in terms of episcopal authority)!

 

[JohnVIII]

My friend, I’m sure you know that there was a very large Jewish diaspora all over the Roman empire, right? Haven’t you read of how St. Paul in his missions always went to the synanogues and the Jews of the place he visited before he turned his attention to the Gentiles? And what about the many tongues of the Jewish pilgrims during Pentecost? There was a very sizeable Jewish population in the city of Rome, from secular historical sources.

Besides, St Peter’s narrow ministry to the Jews could not supersede his place in the whole church as the rock, holder of the keys and chief of the Apostles. It was very fitting that he would finally take his seat at the center of the world at that time.
Absolutely not! Read Acts, my friend- It’s very clear who takes up the leadership in Jerusalem after the birth of the Church and before St. Peter escapes Prison and is forced to flee to Antioch.

And your claims about James are based on that one line in Galatians where James is mentioned before Peter and the Gospel of Thomas? My friend, you are in no place to accuse us of “reaching”.
This is simply not true! St. Peter had long revealed what God had told him to the Church before this council! That’s why there were Gentiles in the Church to begin with! This was not a debate about whether Gentiles were to be included but whether they were obligated to live like their Jewish brothers. St. Peter went much further and taught about the salvation of all being by grace thereby making the mosaic law totally unnecessary.

Nothing about our understanding contradicts the text in any way at all. The only reason you and Cavaraddosi accuse us or reaching/leaping/distortion is because your own assumptions/understanding about the text are different- nothing more .
Yet no one had any qualms about fighting the apostle to the Gentiles on this matter pertaining to Gentiles, did they? That’s why Paul was in Jerusalem- His teaching on the lack of necessity of circumcision was rejected- until St. Peter proclaimed it to the council and brought the debate to an abrupt end. Besides, there was much debate- certainly they felt free to contradict the Apostles, except after Peter got up and spoke.
Peter did teach- His teaching was binding and that is why no one dared to contradict him after he had taught. And this when the issue had been so heated both at Antioch and Jerusalem. And his teaching remains forever. James added nothing to his teaching but merely added that God willed to make a people of himself from the Gentiles- A matter that had been long accepted and was not even in dispute at this council. He made a changeable disciplinary rule based on this teaching- He did not even seek a vote (remember this was a council) because apparently after Peter spoke, there remained only one position.
Yet no one can deny that he did teach the council, and his teaching is true now as it was when he taught and shall remain unchanged- Or that his teaching was totally accepted without any argument at all and effectively ended any further debate.

Peace!

What I just said in my last post apply’s to your post too. Please get the “James”'s straitened out and then let’s talk.

 

[JohnVIII]

In Hebrews 7:6-7 it reads, “But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.” This verse points out that because Melchizedek blessed Abraham that Melchizedek was greater than Abraham.

Now consider Acts 8:14, “Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John.”

Now, what authority in Jerusalem was able to send Peter, the Rock? Of course it was James (not James the son of Zebedee, he was dead, but James the Bishop of Jerusalem)! He that sends is greater than he who is sent! How can you doubt this?

Would you doubt this saying “sent” is not the same as a “blessing”? According to the tradition of the Church it is. A bishop never really sends someone to do something, he gives him a blessing to do it. So it is equivalent, the one who sends is greater than the one who is sent.

Would you doubt this because it doesn’t say in the verse that it was James who sent Peter? It is clearly implied, but if you wish to only go by what is written then it says, “the apostles” sent Peter. So, then you must an lest admit that “the apostles” are greater than St Peter.

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by JohnVIII
Also, may I ask why St Peter would even go to Rome when Paul said, “the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter” (Galatians 2:7).

"After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.” Acts15

Jerusalem: the starting point.

Then all Judaea.

Then Samaria.

Then unto the uttermost part of the earth: the home of the Gentiles.

 

[joe370]

Cavaradossi, regarding post #1 I found the following quotes. I’m sure some of the fathers interpret the rock to be Peter’s confession of faith with which the CCC agrees but do any of them ever disagree with the idea that the church is built on Peter? If you get the chance could you post some quotes from protestant scholars that disagree with these scholars? I’ll look too:

Twelve Quotations from Ten Protestant Biblical Scholars:

catholicity.elcore.net/SimonIsTheRock.html

William Hendriksen
member of the Reformed Christian Church
Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary

The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.

Gerhard Maier
leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian

Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which — in accordance with the words of the text — applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis.

Donald A. Carson III
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary
(two quotations from different works)

Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock”. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.

The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.

John Peter Lange
German Protestant scholar

The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun… The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock”, etc.

John A. Broadus
Baptist author
(two quotations from the same work)

Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.

But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho”. The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha”… Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.”

 

[joe370]

J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor
Reformed Theological Seminary

By the words “this rock” Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church”. As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus.

Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament
Denver Seminary

Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter”, parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ”, as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification.

David Hill
Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies
University of Sheffield, England

On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.

Suzanne de Dietrich
Presbyterian theologian

The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. “Simon”, the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community.

Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary

The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built… The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock… seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Cavaradossi, regarding post #1 I found the following quotes. I’m sure some of the fathers interpret the rock to be Peter’s confession of faith with which the CCC agrees but do any of them ever disagree with the idea that the church is built on Peter? If you get the chance could you post some quotes from protestant scholars that disagree with these scholars? I’ll look too:

Why protestant scholars? That being said, I think you have misunderstood my position. I don’t doubt that in Aramaic, the play on Petra and Petros is impossible. I just think it’s foolish to toss out interpretations based on the Greek because the Greek would have been the text that virtually all of the Early Church Fathers used.

 

[joe370]

Regarding post #1 - Non-Catholic Greek scholars regarding Kepha:

Oscar Cullman:

The masculine “petros” is used more for isolated rocks or small stones, including flints and pebbles for slings. Since there is such a great difference in content, the emphasis should be noted, though in practice one cannot differentiate too strictly between “petra” and “petros;” they are often used interchangeably.

… the parallelism of “thou art rock” and “upon this rock I will build” shows that the second rock can only be referring to the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter … to be the foundation of his “ecclesia.” To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.

Colin Brown:

It seems most likely that the original word Jesus used for both “petra” and “petros” was the Aramaic “kepa,” and that the difference in the Greek was due to the appropriateness of giving Peter a masculine form of the word for “rock”. Although “petros” can mean a detached rock or stone and “petra” a mass of living rock, the two words could be used interchangeably. Without further clear indication it is impossible to build any firm argument on the distinction between the two words.

Following on Brown’s comments, it is instructive to see how the Scripture supports his conclusion, based upon its definition of petros:

Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter) (John 1:42).

Non-Catholic Greek scholars** regarding Simon’s confession:**

Alan Richardson:

… “petros” means a fragment of “petra,” rock. … The saying can hardly mean that Peter is the rock on which the church is built, since the foundation-rock of the church is Christ (or faith in Christ). Rather, it is Peter’s rock-like faith in Christ which is to be the foundation of the church.

In other words: you are rock and on this rock-like faith in Christ…This merely suggests that Jesus church is built on Peter’s faith.

All catholics agree that the foundation-rock of the church is Christ.

Why can it “hardly mean that Peter is the rock on which the church is built, since the foundation-rock of the church is Christ?”

Cairnes:

Christ called Peter a petros, or stone, but He spoke of the rock on which he would build the church as petra, a living rock. The word “rock” that is applied to Peter is masculine in gender, but the “rock” on which Christ said he would build his church is feminine in gender. There is good reason to believe that the correct interpretation is that Christ was by the word “rock” referring to Peter’s confession of Him as “the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”

He does seem to be assuming what he is setting out to prove. He also fails to tell us why the word “rock”, applied to Peter, is masculine in gender, and why the word “rock” on which Christ said he would build his church, is feminine in gender?