Prodigal's Isle

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,

i see you are more interested in the issue of succession now, than on petrine primacy as such, wich was what i was dealing with specifically. Am I getting your attitude, as perceivable through this question of yours? …

P7:

Perhaps i’m suffering from the same defect as Socrates himself:

But it’s true that, obviously under the influence of my ignorance, I chop and change, and even hold the opposite opinion sometimes. …
*
*As I remarked before, however, I chop and change and continually modify my opinion. Inconsistency is to be expected in me and any other amateur. But if you experts are inconsistent, and we can’t get relief from our vacillation even by coming to you, then this is monstrous, for us as well as for you.

*(Hippias Minor, 372, 376)
*
I’m not much of a thinker, and often change my mind. My wife says i have ADD.

But since you press me to justify my actions, let me use database terminology. What’s going on at the back end is this: I’m wondering what if: What if Peter is Christ’s chosen leader? What conclusion does inductive reasoning lead me to accept from this choice?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Moses was a prophet, the greatest one ever in Israel. Did he have a line of successors as “greatest prophets ever” ? Did the other prophets including John Baptists have a line of successors ? You and I would answer with a “NO”, I guess.
Why don’t propehts have lines of successors ?
Because theirs is not an office.

Abraham was the father of the believers ? is there a line of succession of “fathers of the believers”. No, I suppose we agree. Is being father of the believers an office ? I don’t think so . Do you ?

…

Then let’s play some more what if: What if Abraham and Moses were pillars of the Jewish religion? Do you think they were? Why or why not?

 

[pneuma07]

P7:

Isn’t it true that Peter was chosen by God to be shepherd of the sheep of Rome, Paul was chosen by God to be shepherd of the sheep in present-day Greece and Turkey, and James was chosen by God to be shepherd of the the sheep in Jerusalem and Judea?

Well, many protestant brothers would tell you Peter was never in Rome.

Nowadays B16 is ruling his own diocese, ie Rome, besides shepherding the Church. Where do you see an aut aut here ?

Is a general, or a CEO, in charge of his staff ? Does that mean he is in charge of that ONLY ?

Bless you
P7

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Well, many protestant brothers would tell you Peter was never in Rome.

Nowadays B16 is ruling his own diocese, ie Rome, besides shepherding the Church. Where do you see an aut aut here ?

Is a general, or a CEO, in charge of his staff ? Does that mean he is in charge of that ONLY ?

Bless you
P7

I don’t believe you are intentionally avoiding the question. The fault is mine for being unclear. What i mean to ask is this: Isn’t it true that there were three shepherds of Jesus’ flock during the infancy of His church?

 

[pneuma07]

P7:

Perhaps i’m suffering from the same defect as Socrates himself:

But it’s true that, obviously under the influence of my ignorance, I chop and change, and even hold the opposite opinion sometimes. …
*
*As I remarked before, however, I chop and change and continually modify my opinion. Inconsistency is to be expected in me and any other amateur. But if you experts are inconsistent, and we can’t get relief from our vacillation even by coming to you, then this is monstrous, for us as well as for you.

*(Hippias Minor, 372, 376)
*
I’m not much of a thinker, and often change my mind. My wife says i have ADD.

But since you press me to justify my actions, let me use database terminology. What’s going on at the back end is this: I’m wondering what if: What if Peter is Christ’s chosen leader? What conclusion does inductive reasoning lead me to accept from this choice?

IMHO we could say: if Jesus established the office of General Pastor, appointing Simon-Peter to that formidable task, is it the most plausible option for us supposing the rationale for that office would cease after the first generation, as if after that time Jesus’ sheep should not need being confirmed or fed any longer ?

 

[pneuma07]

Then let’s play some more what if: What if Abraham and Moses were pillars of the Jewish religion? Do you think they were? Why or why not?

I guess I’d need a definition of yours of “pillar”.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

IMHO we could say: if Jesus established the office of General Pastor, appointing Simon-Peter to that formidable task, is it the most plausible option for us supposing the rationale for that office would cease after the first generation, as if after that time Jesus’ sheep should not need being confirmed or fed any longer ?

One question at a time, please: Was there one, or were there three?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I guess I’d need a definition of yours of “pillar”.

I guess my answer depends on your answer to this question: How is Peter a pillar of the Catholic Church?

 

[pneuma07]

I don’t believe you are intentionally avoiding the question. The fault is mine for being unclear. What i mean to ask is this: Isn’t it true that there were three shepherds of Jesus’ flock during the infancy of His church?

Soc,

My direct answer is:
I guess there were many more than three.

Isn’t it true that there are many commanders in the US Armed Forces ?
Does that mean they have not a Commander in Chief ?

It’s bed time in Europe.

Bless you.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc,

My direct answer is:
I guess there were many more than three.

Isn’t it true that there are many commanders in the US Armed Forces ?
Does that mean they have not a Commander in Chief ?

It’s bed time in Europe.

Bless you.

Hope you have a good night’s rest! Talk at you later.



(It’s 6 PM ET, here. The sun is getting low enough to give me shade to mow the lawn.)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

The second passage I’d like to raise for your consideration, Socrates, is one of Jesus’ last prayers before beginning his Passion (John 17):

My biggest point here: UNITY. Over and over (most of the passages in bold), Jesus prays for unity. Unity among his disciples. Unity among the believers who will follow. Our Unity is what affirms our witness. And its a visible unity - one that the world can see. And that means a unity built into the structure, built into the theology. The difference between Luther and Catherine of Sienna or St. Francis of Assisi, or any of the other Catholic Reformers, was that Luther let his just opposition to an abuse of the Church’s doctrine lead him away from the Church. Have those abuses occurred? Absolutely! The Popes are not Impeccable. The Bishops are not Impeccable. The Priests are not Impeccable. And we as Catholics are most certainly not Impeccable. Abuses occur. They’re unfortunate. They certainly need to be addressed. But they are not a failure of the Church or her Teaching. They are a failure of the implementation (by some people) of that Teaching. (And/Or they’re a failure of a fallen human being. But then again, Jesus’ disciples weren’t impeccable either. One betrayed him. Another denied him three times. And yet the one who denied him was still given the keys to the kingdom and the job of leading the Church.) Luther chose to leave the Church. Calvin chose to leave the Church. But this need not have been. We need not have lost our unity - that thing which seems to be so important to Jesus here. And as the many reformers in the church have shown, one can correct the Church’s practice and not jump off the ship. …

Found the second passage you quoted, Doc.

I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one.

–Jesus (John 17:9-11)
I think it was Augustine who said this:

In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.

If we can accept that he was correct, then we can accept that it’s OK to agree to disagree about the non-essential things. We can (and perhaps even should) debate them vigorously, and then go out for pizza afterword. However, when it comes to essentials, that’s a different story. We can (and perhaps should) part company over these essential doctrines.

That’s what Protestants tell me was Luther’s motivation. What was intended to be a Catholic Reformation became a Protestant Reformation when it became clear that he and other Protestants must part company due to disagreements over essential doctrines.

Just what the essentials are, i have some idea. What i should believe about some of them, i’m trying to figure out. But we should not be unified for the sake of unity. We should be unified in the truth and in love, don’t you think?

 

[Pax]

“Not educated” is a criticism the enemies of Christ used to describe Peter and the other apostles in Acts. Accusing them of being uneducated does not prove that they were illiterate and could not read the Torah (i.e., Old Testament) and other ancient works. The Jewish people had the highest percentage of literacy in the ancient world. Consider this source:
The Pharisees, who were the democratic inheritors of the religious ideas of the “Men of the Great Synagogue,” also adopted as their motto the obligation to “raise up many disciples and build a fence around the Torah.” When they finally succeeded, under the leadership of Simeon ben Shetach, in wrestling control of the Sanhedrin from priestly aristocratic Sadduces about 150 years before the Destruction of the Second Temple, they proclaimed to the people that the Torah was the heritage not just of the priestly elite, but also of every single person “in the congregation of Jacob.” Accordingly, they established what amounted to obligatory universal and free religious education for the young in every Jewish community–an event unprecedented in all history and one that was not duplicated anywhere until the introduction of free elementary schools in the United States during the nineteenth century.

(From The Jewish Book of Knowledge, An Encyclopedia of Judaism and the Jewish People, Covering All Elements of Jewish Life from Biblical Times to the Present, written by Nathan Ausubel, p. 337, (c) 1964, Library of Congress Catalog Number: 62-20063, printed in the United States of America.)

The upshot: Peter and the other apostles would have been fully literate, as they was educated in the obligatory, free, and universal, ancient Jewish educational system. It is likely he would have been exposed, when he was younger, to the Torah and other written works related to the Jewish people, history and culture. There is also evidence that Matthew, being from the priestly tribe of Levi, would have been even more educated that the others.

Soc in Christ,

Paul was clearly a well educated man and knew Greek very well. Peter and the other apostles were not as well educated. Yes, they would know the Torah and would know about the Jewish people’s culture and their history. This does not mean that they would know attic greek and the nuances of greek poetry of an earlier era. This simply seems very unlikely to me, and I doubt that they understood petros and petra to mean small and large stone. The koine greek that they would have been familiar with did not include those distinctions. Another bit of evidence to support this is that there is nothing else in the NT that indicates esoteric usages from attic greek as opposed to the common understandings of koine greek. I see no reason to assume that Matthew 16:18 would somehow be the exception.

I hope this helps.

 

[Pax]

Thanks, P7. Please tell me how you would finish these sentences:

Peter is the the papacy as Moses is to ______________ .

or

Peter is to the papacy as Abraham is to _______________ .

Soc in Christ,

The following doesn’t answer these two questions directly but is a parallel possibility posed by someone that used to post on CAF before the Great Forum Crash back in the day. It is lengthy but worth a read.

Authority and Interpretation in Jewish Culture during Jesus’ life
It would seem to me that the best place to start would be to look at what model of authority and interpretation existed during the life of Jesus. We can then look to see we can find out whether Jesus Himself had any view on that model.

The Sanhedrin
We do in fact know that a model existed. It was the Sanhedrin. During Jesus’ life the Sanhedrin was the supreme council and court of justice among the Jews. The exact origins of the Sanhedrin is a subject of debate. Some experts tie it to the council of seventy found in Numbers Chapter 11. Some have sought to link its origin to the founding of the ‘Great Synagogue’ of which tradition attributed to Esdras. Other interpretations have also been offered. Regardless of it’s origin, it is widely acknowledged (including in the New Testament (NT)) that it was the seat of religious power in Judaism at the time of Jesus.

According to the testimony of the Mishna (Sanh., i, 6; Shebuoth, ii, 2), confirmed by a remark of Josephus newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm (“Bell. Jud.”, II, xx, 5), the Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-one members, president included. Jewish tradition appealed to Numbers 9:16, to justify this number and indeed the model of 70 elders in addition to Moses as ‘president’ does seem to fit fairly well.
According to what rules the members were appointed and the vacancies filled up is unclear; it seems that various customs prevailed on this point at different periods. Since the Sanhedrin had to deal frequently with legal matters, it was natural that many of its members should be chosen from among men specially given to the study of the Law; this is why we so often hear of the scribes and Pharisees in the Sanhedrin. Most of those scribes during the time of Christ were Pharisees, with other members being of the Sadducee persuasion. At any rate we are told (Sanh., iv, 4) that a semikah, or imposition of hands, took place at the formal installation of the new appointees; and there is every reason to believe that the appointment was for life.

The jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin varied in extension at different periods. At the time of the public life of Jesus, only the eleven toparchies of Judea were de jure subject to the Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem; however, de facto the Jews all the world over acknowledged its authority (as an instances of this, see Acts 9:2; 22:5; 26:12). As the supreme court of justice of the nation, the Sanhedrin was appealed to when the lower courts were unable to come to a decision (Sanh., vii, 1; xi, 2); moreover, it had the exclusive right of judgment in matters of special importance, as for instance the case of a false prophet, accusations against the high priest, the sending out of an army in certain circumstances, the enlarging of the city of Jerusalem, or of the Temple courts, etc. (Sanh., i, 5; ii, 4; iii, 4); the few instances mentioned in the New Testament exemplify the cases to which the competency of the Sanhedrin extended; in short, all religious matters and all civil matters not claimed by Roman authority were within its attributions; and the decisions issued by its judges were to be held inviolable (Sanh., xi, 2-4).

Evidence 1
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.

Jesus’ View
Seeing that this is the case, we must then ask if we can determine what Jesus thought of this model. Let us take a look at Matthew 23: 1-10…

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

Regardless of the historical debate of its origins, Jesus here is linking the Sanhedrin directly to Moses and the seventy for us. Moses’ seat in the context of Christ’s comments clearly represents Moses teaching authority. Jesus is telling us the Sanhedrin now has this authority. In this statement he is explicitly endorsing that teaching authority in the model outlined above.

As an aside, this bodes ill for Sola Scriptura in a double manner. Firstly, because Jesus here endorses the teaching authority of the Sanhedrin while making no mention of Torah authority. Secondly because he is using an oral tradition Himself to teach. The ‘Seat of Moses’ is nowhere mentioned in the Old Testament (OT), but is rather an oral tradition of the Jews of that time that he assumes they will recognize.
Also note that this passage does NOT say that the scribes and Pharisees teach false doctrines. Rather, what Jesus points out is that they teach true doctrine, but they do not practice what they preach. Because they “sit in Moses’ Seat,” i.e. they teach with the authority of Moses, they must be obeyed in their teaching, i.e. their teaching is correct, but they are not to be followed by their example, “for they say, and do not.”

Evidence 1
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.

Evidence 2
The teaching authority of the Sanhedrin was explicitly endorsed by Jesus.

The New Church and Authority
It seems reasonable then to argue that if this model was endorsed by Christ, then as he was establishing His Church, he might use this same model, and his disciples would recognize it. But this can not be assumed. We must look to see if there is any indication of this.

Let us start with Matthew 18:15-18
"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.

cont. on next post

 

[Pax]

cont. from prior post:

In this teaching we have Jesus explaining how resolution for offenses is to be handled in the Church which he is establishing. The model follows the Jewish model of the time of an escalation of the issue until it reaches the Church/Synagogue. But ultimately it is assumed that the Church will have the authority to make a definitive judgment in the matter. In order to be a judge, one must have that authority. We already know how that authority was invested in the Jewish culture and that Jesus acknowledged and endorsed that system. It is the Catholic understanding that Jesus is making a statement here that in His Church, it is His disciples who will hold such power (i.e. the ‘new’ Sanhedrin). In giving the power to bind and loose to His disciples, he is investing in them the authority to teach, interpret and be judges in His new Church.

Who is the ‘YOU’
There are two main issues that must be clarified in order to support this understanding. Firstly, who the ‘you’ is in the ‘truly’ I say to you. Secondly, whether the power of binding and loosing does indeed indicate such authority.

Via Matt. 18:1 we know that the dialogue above was a conversation between Jesus and His disciples. During the dialogue He at times expands the context of the teaching to include a wider group (see 18:5 (whoever), 18:15(brother)), but His emphatic ‘I say unto YOU’ implies that he is addressing the next statement specifically to the conversants. In addition, in the context of the preceding versus regarding the ‘church’, it would seem non-sensical (especially in light of what we know about the Jewish authority structure), to give judgmental and teaching authority to all members. If each member has equivalent authority, then there is by definition no ‘higher’ authority to which one can appeal. It would make the investing of authority and the escalation of the issue unworkable.

In light of the context that Church functioning is what is actually being discussed, and in light of the Jewish model, it seems more reasonable to posit that Jesus is investing this authority in His ‘disciples’. It is also important to mention that in context of Matthew, ‘disciples’ was a much more restrictive term than crowd, or followers. I personally believe that a full reading of Matthew strongly suggests, that for whatever his purpose, Matthew did not acknowledge any other of the disciples than the twelve. Even a more expansive reading using the context of Luke, which tells us that the full circle of disciples (as opposed to followers) totaled at most seventy (hmmm, that number seventy again, another tie to the existing Jewish model?) is still fairly restrictive.

Binding and Loosing
The crucial issue is whether authority is what is being given by Jesus in this teachings. What did He mean by the terms “bind” and “loose?” These words were commonly used by Jewish rabbis. New Testament scholars agree that “binding and loosing,” when used in this way, retain the basic meaning that they had in the Jewish culture of the first century.

For example, the THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT states under the entries for “deo” and “luo” (the Greek words for binding and loosing used in Matthew), "Jesus does not give to Peter and the other disciples any power to enchant or to free by magic. The customary meaning of the Rabbinic expressions is equally incontestable, namely, to declare forbidden or permitted, and thus to impose or remove an obligation, by a doctrinal decision."1 TDNT draws the conclusion that this is the meaning of the words as used in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18.

A. T. Robertson, one of this century’s leading Greek scholars, also comments on Matthew 16:19: "To bind' in rabbinical language is to forbid, to loose’ is to permit.

Concerning Matthew 16:19, William Hendriksen states, "The very wording - note whatever,' not whoever’ - shows that the passage refers to things, in this case beliefs and actions, not directly to people. Binding and loosing are rabbinical terms, meaning forbidding and permitting."3

Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament, under the entry "de " (to bind), states, “…by a Chaldean and rabbinic idiom to forbid, prohibit, declare illicit: Matthew 16:19; 18:18.”

In Matthew 18, Christ is clearly giving the disciples an authoritative power to teach doctrine in His Church. But these cites also reference Matthew 16:19 as well. Let us take a look now at Matthew
16:Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17: And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Here we have Christ giving this power specifically to Peter at the same time as giving him a new name of ‘Rock’ (Cephus, Petros) (chronologically this occurred earlier). So he specifically singles Peter out and gives him this authority. Why was this necessary if he was going to do so later in Matt 18. The ‘key’ to this is in the first part of the statement ‘I will give you the keys to of the kingdom of heaven’. He single Peter out because he is giving him something additional that he won’t give the other disciples in Matt. 18. So what do the keys represent?

The image of the keys is probably drawn from Isaiah 22:15-25 usccb.org/nab/bible/isaiah/isaiah22.htm where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given “the key of the house of David,” which he authoritatively “opens” and “shuts” (Isaiah 22:22 usccb.org/nab/bible/isaiah/isaiah22.htm). It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone. If Jesus is not giving some additional rank or authority to Peter alone, then what can it mean that Jesus not only singled him out for this blessing, but also gave the blessing with a second ‘gift’ (the keys) as well. The Protestant view that Peter here is given nothing special defies logic and again makes a statement of Jesus meaningless.

cont. on next post:

 

[Pax]

cont. from prior post:

The Best Evidence - Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 In Action
If the ‘interpretations’ of the above two passages are unconvincing, then we can look elsewhere in the NT to see how Peter and the others understood Jesus’ teaching on binding and loosing by examining their actions as recorded in the Book of Acts. Acts 15 records a dispute that arose about the behavior of Gentiles who were recently becoming part of the church. Their customs were far different from the Jews, who then made up most of the church. Should the new Gentile converts be required to be circumcised and to keep other requirements of the Law of Moses? So how was this issue resolved?

1:But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2: And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.

We see Paul and Barnabas heading up to the first council at Jerusalem for a resolution. They go to the ‘Apostles and Elders’ to have the issue decided. So what happens next?

6:The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7: And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8: And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; 9: and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. 10: Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11: But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” 12: And all the assembly kept silence;

What happens is that the apostles and elders debate the issue, Peter rises (note that his rising ends the debate), and gives his decision in very clear terms ‘We believe…, just as they will’. Not ‘We believe…so the should’, but ‘We believe…just as they will’. This is a definitive statement. And all the assembly kept silence. A few moments later, James concurs with Peter (this would have been ecclesiastically appropriate since they were in Jerusalem, and James was the bishop of the Church in Jerusalem). No further burden was to be placed upon the Gentile Christians. The apostles herein exercised the power of binding and loosing, as given by Jesus, and Peter took the lead role in doing so. The authority to bind and loose is the authority to declare what is God’s mind on a matter of doctrine or practice. This is what the early church did in Acts 15.

Evidence 1
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.

Evidence 2
The teaching authority of the Sanhedrin was explicitly endorsed by Jesus.

Evidence 3
Jesus invests teaching/doctrinal authority (previously held by the Sanhedrin) for His church in His disciples. His disciples recognize this commission and demonstrated such by exercising that authority.

Argument 1
Jesus intended for an authoritative body to exist in His church which would be able to teach on doctrinal issue (i.e. necessity of circumcision). That body was established and consisted of His Disciples (the Apostles and elders). That body recognized it’s authority and exercised it over the rest of the Church body. The body likewise recognized that authority and looked to it to resolve disputes (i.e. Paul and Barnabas were sent up to that body to get a judgment).

I hope this helps.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc in Christ,

Paul was clearly a well educated man and knew Greek very well. Peter and the other apostles were not as well educated. Yes, they would know the Torah and would know about the Jewish people’s culture and their history. This does not mean that they would know attic greek and the nuances of greek poetry of an earlier era. This simply seems very unlikely to me, and I doubt that they understood petros and petra to mean small and large stone. The koine greek that they would have been familiar with did not include those distinctions. Another bit of evidence to support this is that there is nothing else in the NT that indicates esoteric usages from attic greek as opposed to the common understandings of koine greek. I see no reason to assume that Matthew 16:18 would somehow be the exception.

I hope this helps.

True, that statement about Paul, Pax! Had he continued his education under the great rabbi Gamaliel, he might have been one of the most famous of members of the Sanhedrin.

Regarding Peter’s education, i think we’re delving into the unknown. We don’t know exactly what he learned in school and what he did not learn outside of the Torah (though i have no doubt you have a better idea than i do). The fact that he was a fisherman does not prove he was not educated. Rabbis were not paid for teaching, and had vocations to provide for themselves and their families (Paul, who was on his way to becoming a rabbi, was a tent maker). Peter might have been highly educated, but not highly motivated. Or he might have committed some sin that was so scanalous he had to abandon the path of Paul. Or he might have, out of love for his family, taken over the family business after the death of his father and simply had no time to continue his studies and become a rabbi.

---

That being said, i want to see what the logical conclusion of your inference might be. The ancient Greek MSS of Matthew’s gospel are written in the koine dialect and have Jesus using the word petros for Peter and petra for rock. So i’ll ask you a question similar to the one i asked Ut in post 164:

Please tell me, my friend: Which is your opinion?

1. 
   *]The ancient scribes botched the translation or transmission of the original text of Matthew 16.
   *]Matthew was careless in recalling Christ’s words in Matthew 16.
   *]Christ was careless in choosing His words in Matthew 16.
   *]Christ intentionally chose those words stone and rock for a reason in Matthew 16.
   
   I gather you hold (1) to be true, or is there another logical conclusion i have not considered?

 

[Thing]

Yes, i think i see. So the answer to my question, “Isn’t Christ the origin of the church?” is this:

“No, He is the originator of the church! The origin of the church is recorded in Acts. That is the beginning of Christ’s church.”

So what makes Dicken’s desk his desk is his ownership of it. What makes the Christian Church Christ’s church is His ownership of it. Is this what you are getting at?

I think your question was 'Is’nt Christ the provenance of the Church?’.
The answer is that He is the founder of the Church and the Church is the provenance of Christianity**.

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not* prevail against it.

***28 Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I think your question was 'Is’nt Christ the *provenance of the Church?’.
The answer is that He is the founder of the Church and the Church is the provenance of Christianity.

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not* prevail against it.

Yes, insofar as provenance is understood to mean origin, i’d say the church is the origin of Christianity. And i’d add that the historical record of that origin begins in the book of Acts.

 

[Thing]

Yes, insofar as provenance is understood to mean origin, i’d say the church is the origin of Christianity. And i’d add that the historical record of that origin begins in the book of Acts.

Or declared here;

Matt
18 “Thou art Peter”… As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, St. John 1. 42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

18 “Upon this rock”… The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built: Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder, St. Matt. 7. 24, 25.

18 “The gates of hell”… That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself, or his agents. For as the church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, that is, the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Or declared here;

Matt
18 “Thou art Peter”… As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, St. John 1. 42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

18 “Upon this rock”… The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built: Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder, St. Matt. 7. 24, 25.

18 “The gates of hell”… That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself, or his agents. For as the church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, that is, the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ.

Well, i don’t want to commit the fallacy of begging the question.

I’m asking, “How do i know the Catholic Church is an authority i should trust?”

You and others are saying, “Because Jesus says Peter is the rock on which He will build His church.”

So, i ask, “How do i know Peter is the rock?”

And you answer, “Because the Catholic Church says He is!”

In effect, you are asking me to revert to Catholicism for this reason:

The Catholic Church claims it is an authority i should trust, therefore, the Catholic Church is an authority i should trust.

That’s begging the question, and not a good reason to become a Catholic. I need a better reason than that to believe.