Primacy Of Peter

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Martwen

Guest
I would like to start by quoting Matthew 16:15-19 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” In this passage, many say that we must look at Peter’s statement about who Jesus is and that this is the “rock’ that Jesus’ was talking about. But, if you look at the language that Jesus would have been speaking it would have been Aramaic. The word that Jesus would have used would have been “Kapa” meaning rock or peter and translated into the Greek Kaphas. Therefore, Jesus would have said I say to you, you are Kapa (rock) and upon this kapa (rock), I will build my Church. He than gave Peter the Keys to Heaven, which would have given Peter the power to hand down His authority.

His authority is stated many times in The Acts of the Apostles. Acts 1:13-26 headed meeting which elected Matthias, Acts2:114 led the Apostles in preaching on Pentecost. There are many more examples in Acts that can be added.

True Faith, True Church
 
I would like to start by quoting Matthew 16:15-19 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” In this passage, many say that we must look at Peter’s statement about who Jesus is and that this is the “rock’ that Jesus’ was talking about. But, if you look at the language that Jesus would have been speaking it would have been Aramaic. The word that Jesus would have used would have been “Kapa” meaning rock or peter and translated into the Greek Kaphas. Therefore, Jesus would have said I say to you, you are Kapa (rock) and upon this kapa (rock), I will build my Church. He than gave Peter the Keys to Heaven, which would have given Peter the power to hand down His authority.

His authority is stated many times in The Acts of the Apostles. Acts 1:13-26 headed meeting which elected Matthias, Acts2:114 led the Apostles in preaching on Pentecost. There are many more examples in Acts that can be added.

True Faith, True Church
I do not agree. Jesus built the church upon himself. If Peter was given so much authority then why did Paul oppose him to his face about his practices? Why did Peter only write a couple of Epistles and Paul wrote many? Peter was a poor fisherman who got it wrong just as many times as he got it right.
 
I do not agree. Jesus built the church upon himself. If Peter was given so much authority then why did Paul oppose him to his face about his practices? Why did Peter only write a couple of Epistles and Paul wrote many? Peter was a poor fisherman who got it wrong just as many times as he got it right.
I don’t completely follow your logic. Because someone’s a fisherman, that makes them less of an Apostle? :eek:

Nowhere in Scripture does it say Christ built the Church upon himself. Scripture and History attest to this.

Basing on “who is better” in regards to who “wrote the most” does not make much sense to me.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew
 
I don’t completely follow your logic. Because someone’s a fisherman, that makes them less of an Apostle? :eek:

Nowhere in Scripture does it say Christ built the Church upon himself. Scripture and History attest to this.

Basing on “who is better” in regards to who “wrote the most” does not make much sense to me.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew
You are also blinded by common sense. Why don’t you do yourself and your supposed faith a favor and read the Scriptures and then this might all make sense to you. I was once Catholic too and encouraged not to read Scripturebut once I did, I wasn’t Catholic anymore!
 
You are also blinded by common sense. Why don’t you do yourself and your supposed faith a favor and read the Scriptures and then this might all make sense to you. I was once Catholic too and encouraged not to read Scripturebut once I did, I wasn’t Catholic anymore!
It was common sense that made me Catholic, and the Holy Scriptures. 👍

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew
 
I do not agree. Jesus built the church upon himself. If Peter was given so much authority then why did Paul oppose him to his face about his practices? Why did Peter only write a couple of Epistles and Paul wrote many? Peter was a poor fisherman who got it wrong just as many times as he got it right.
Jesus is the cornerstone; He built the church upon Peter, ‘the rock’; we are all the ‘living stones’ making up the church. These are all figures of speech which reflect a truth.

Peter was given authority to teach (to ‘feed my sheep’). He taught that the Jewish and Gentile Christians were equal but he was not living up to what he taught. Paul, as a fellow Christian and apostle, confronted him about this so he could have insight into his behavior and change. What Peter had taught was true. Peter, like all of us, sinned and fell short of the glory of God but he always repented.

Perhaps Paul wrote so many letters because he traveled so much. Also, he was Greek speaking and wrote to the Greek speaking people he converted who had many practices he had to correct. I think Peter tended to stay in one place for a long time (Antioch and then Rome). He didn’t need to write them letters because he was there and could take care of problems in person.

Peter was a fisherman; he captained his own boat. Paul was a tent maker and a Pharisee who knew the Jewish law well and he spoke Greek. Jesus chose him so he could preach to the Gentiles. Peter walked with Jesus for three years. Peter, James, and John seemed to be the ones Jesus chose to be closest to him. They were with Him at the transfiguration and in the garden. Peter and John ran to the tomb and John held back and let Peter enter first out of respect.

When Jesus called Peter satan, he meant that what Peter had said, although said out of concern for Jesus’ life, was not what Jesus was supposed to do. It was like saying, ‘don’t tempt me’.

Why do you seem to have it in for Peter? The bible makes it pretty clear that Jesus called Peter for a special work. In Acts we see that sick people tried to get where Peter’s shadow would fall on them so they would be healed. On Pentecost, Peter’s powerful preaching converted thousands. Obviously, the Spirit was on him in a special way.

PS I’m a Catholic. I read the bible. I hear it read in church. We hear all the gospels, not just a few sections a particular pastor wants to preach on.
 
I do not agree. Jesus built the church upon himself. If Peter was given so much authority then why did Paul oppose him to his face about his practices? Why did Peter only write a couple of Epistles and Paul wrote many? Peter was a poor fisherman who got it wrong just as many times as he got it right.
Please provide one teaching that Peter gave in either of his two letters that was incorrect. Please find one teaching by Peter recorded in the Acts of the apostles that was incorrect.

Peter’s behavior was hypocritical to his own true teaching. Paul got in his face over being hypocritical…that happens with all of us from time to time. Please explain to me how writing more letters than someone else places one in a greater position of authority. You might wish to remember that Paul did go to Jerusalem after preaching for approximately 14 years to speak with Peter, James and John in order to make sure that his own teaching was correct and that he was not running in vain.
 
Please provide one teaching that Peter gave in either of his two letters that was incorrect. Please find one teaching by Peter recorded in the Acts of the apostles that was incorrect.

Peter’s behavior was hypocritical to his own true teaching. Paul got in his face over being hypocritical…that happens with all of us from time to time. Please explain to me how writing more letters than someone else places one in a greater position of authority. You might wish to remember that Paul did go to Jerusalem after preaching for approximately 14 years to speak with Peter, James and John in order to make sure that his own teaching was correct and that he was not running in vain.
Right:thumbsup: He was called directly by Jesus but still submitted himself to their authority.
 
Please provide one teaching that Peter gave in either of his two letters that was incorrect. Please find one teaching by Peter recorded in the Acts of the apostles that was incorrect.

Peter’s behavior was hypocritical to his own true teaching. Paul got in his face over being hypocritical…that happens with all of us from time to time. Please explain to me how writing more letters than someone else places one in a greater position of authority. You might wish to remember that Paul did go to Jerusalem after preaching for approximately 14 years to speak with Peter, James and John in order to make sure that his own teaching was correct and that he was not running in vain.
Oh my gosh if this isn’t the worst case of pure brainwashing known to God. This is like saying that the sky though it was blue while we all thought it was blue but unknown to anyone, it was actually yellow. Give me a break.
 
Please demonstrate how it is that I am brain washed etc. Please answer my questions directly otherwise I will simly have no choice but to consider your position to be untenable.
 
You are also blinded by common sense. Why don’t you do yourself and your supposed faith a favor and read the Scriptures and then this might all make sense to you. I was once Catholic too and encouraged not to read Scripturebut once I did, I wasn’t Catholic anymore!
I would first like to say that I do read the Scriptures. Second I would like to ask you which Scriptures you are reading that turned you away from the true faith and the Church of Christ. Show me one scripture passage that is in contriduction of Catholic teaching. 👍
 
One must be careful to acknowledge that reading Holy Scripture can lead to quite different interpretations. Perhaps Christ wanted Apostl Peter to be the foundation of the Church. But it is a not clear what is the “Petrin” role of bishop of rome. This especialy needs to be discussed since many Catolics bishops were forbidden in 1870 from discussing this at First Vatican Council. Special attention must be given now to discuss this issue which were not discussed under the Bishop of Rome Pius IX.

Strenuous objections were voiced at the First Vatican Council regarding the lack of freedom of discussion of infallibility on the agenda. Things which at Trent had been left in the hands of the Fathers - settlement of claims to take part in the Council, appointment of officials, regulation of procedure, etc. - were all now fixed by the personal act of the Pope. All anti-infallible proposals or postulations were made to be submitted to a special Congregation, nominated by the Pope, for dealing with such postulates, to consider them and report its advice to the Pope.

Denying the validity of the 1st vatican Council, Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick of American St Louis refused to speak at any of the general sessions after June 4th, 1870.

In spite of Pius IX’s using the power and prestige of his office, there was still a large number - eighty-eight bishops - who voted against Papal Infallibility, which was enshrined in the constitution, Pastor Aeternus. Sixty-two bishops, many of whom were de facto opponents, voted with reservations, with only four hundred and fifty-one giving a clear yes - this is less than half of the one thousand and eighty-four prelates with voting privileges and less than two-thirds of the seven hundred bishops in attendance at the commencement of the Council. Over seventy-six bishops in Rome abstained from voting and fifty-five bishops informed the Pope that while maintaining their opposition to the definition that out of filial piety and reverence, which very recently brought our representatives to the feet of your Holiness, do not allow us in a cause so closely concerning Your Holiness to say non placet (it is not pleasing) openly in the face of the Father.30 This statement alone speaks volumes for the subservience that these bishops had for the totalitarian power of Pius IX - a power of Bishop of Rome unknown in the councils of the Early Church.

Thus lacking a moral unanimity or even a clear two-thirds majority, Papal Infallibility was now elevated as an article of faith equal to the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation.

This is not to say we cannot agree on some better understanding or Petrine role of Bishop of Rome. I pray that we will and Catolics and Orthodox will again be to communion together.
 
It was common sense that made me Catholic, and the Holy Scriptures. 👍

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew
I would like to ask where the Scriptures came from? Where did we get the canon of the Bible. It came from the Catholic Church. I would challenge you to show me anywhere in the Bible where it tells which books are to be included. This decision came from the Catholic Church. The canon of the Bible stayed the same for over 1000 years before some reformers decided that there were things in some books that had teachings that were not in agreement of their own so they decided to remove these books. The books that were removed were in the Scriptures in the time of Christ and he most likely read them during his schooling. If they are good enough for Christ to read and believe I think I will not question that and I will read them to see what it is they have to offer. :eek:

“if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” 1 Tim 3:15. In which Church do we find the truth? Which denomination is correct?

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them” Matt 18:15-20. Which church are we supposed to goto? Of the over 1000 Christan denominations which church was founded by Jesus and which has a continuous link to the Apostles? 👍
 
I do not agree. Jesus built the church upon himself. If Peter was given so much authority then why did Paul oppose him to his face about his practices? Why did Peter only write a couple of Epistles and Paul wrote many? Peter was a poor fisherman who got it wrong just as many times as he got it right.
I’ve got a question. Why would Jesus leave his Church on Earth without any physical leadership? I mean, knowing how incompetant humanity is, why wouldn’t Jesus put some type of leadership in place to take care of any problems that were sure to arise instead of letting everyone decide what was right for themselves?🤷
 
There are three somewhat common interpretations of “the rock” in Matthew 16:18.
“The Rock” = Christ.
“The Rock” = Peter.
“The Rock” = Revelation.

The Bible as a whole uses “the rock” as Christ enough to support this view even though Matthew 16:18 in no way suggests it.
The Greek (and the Aramaic even more so) points strongly to a literary device used by Christ and/or Matthew to indicate that Peter is the rock. The protestant argument against this based on the gender endings in Greek is very poor.
Grammatically “The Rock” = revelation is also a good read as this does seem to be what is being discussed here.

I believe all of these are present in early church writings. That said, I think the Catholic case for Peter being the rock is quite strong actually.
Charity, TOm
 
Oh my gosh if this isn’t the worst case of pure brainwashing known to God. This is like saying that the sky though it was blue while we all thought it was blue but unknown to anyone, it was actually yellow. Give me a break.
Weren’t you bashing Harpazo for appealing to “common sense”? This post sounds a LOT like an appeal to “common sense”.
 
You are also blinded by common sense. Why don’t you do yourself and your supposed faith a favor and read the Scriptures and then this might all make sense to you. I was once Catholic too and encouraged not to read Scripturebut once I did, I wasn’t Catholic anymore!
Comment only, I read scripture, and I seem to be unable to get enough of it, and I am still Catholic.😃
 
Isnt Peter the only human being other than Jesus Christ’s humanity ever recorded in all of history to actually Walk on water?

It’s Ironic that Jesus would rename Simon, Peter, the Rock.
 
To answer this you must understand Matthew’s obvious mistake in the grammer of his Greek.

As already established Jesus didn’t speak Greek in the exchange but Aramaic. The only word in that language for “rock” was “kephas”. In Aramaic there would have been no distinction between Peter’s name and the church’s foundation.

As far as the different Greek names used Matthew didn’t have much of a choice. Jesus was speaking of a foundation stone, so petra would certainly be the right choice; but petra is a feminine noun, and so it could not have served as Simon’s new name. A male could not adopt a feminine name; the name would have to be adapted, be given a masculine form. Thus, Matthew, guided by the Spirit, did something that was obvious and practically necessary: he used the masculine form, Petros, to render Peter’s name Kephas.
 
To answer this you must understand Matthew’s obvious mistake in the grammer of his Greek.

As already established Jesus didn’t speak Greek in the exchange but Aramaic. The only word in that language for “rock” was “kephas”. In Aramaic there would have been no distinction between Peter’s name and the church’s foundation.

As far as the different Greek names used Matthew didn’t have much of a choice. Jesus was speaking of a foundation stone, so petra would certainly be the right choice; but petra is a feminine noun, and so it could not have served as Simon’s new name. A male could not adopt a feminine name; the name would have to be adapted, be given a masculine form. Thus, Matthew, guided by the Spirit, did something that was obvious and practically necessary: he used the masculine form, Petros, to render Peter’s name Kephas.
Woooh!
Jesus spoke Aramaic

Jesus renames Simon to Kephas, which means Rock

Matthew translation from aramaic to Greek style renders Kephas name to Peter or Petros in Greek Massive Rock

But petra is not used because it has a feminine noun meaning small rock.

How do you conclude from this there is no distinction between Peter’s and the Church’s foundation, when Jesus himself states “And upon this Kephas (Rock) I will build my Church”?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top