Protestant interpretations...

[nuntym]

Randy Carlson,

It just occurred to me you are probably referring to Jhn 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

There are actually two words in the Peshitta used to translate the word rock/stone:

“Cephas” (ke’pha) is always used to translate the Greek word “lithos” which means a little stone and usually for “petros”, with the exception of Mat 16, of course.

The other word is “shu’a”. This word, which means a huge immovable rock, is used to translate the word “petra”, but never “lithos”.

In Mark 15:46, the tomb “hewn out of a rock (petra)” is called “shu’a” in the peshitta. The movable stone (lithos) in the same verse is called ke’pha.

shu’a = large rock - cephas = little rock

So, if we are going to use the Aramaic Peshitta to determine the true meaning of Mat 16, we again see Peter as a little rock, petros, and the petra is in question as to whether it is a translation error in light of the word shu’a being the translation in all other places, except Mat 16. But definitely the two are words for stones of two completely different sizes - one massive, the other small.

I’m sorry Ginger2, but you yourself just gave us the way to refute your argument.

I was wondering why you were always talking about the Peshitta, which I did not know anything about, so I tried looking it up in the Internet.

The Peshitta, I found out, is the official Bible of the Assyrian Church of the East. The Church of the East purports it to be the truest, purest Bible because it was written in Aramaic, the original language of Jesus Christ and the apostles. Whether this Bible really contains the original Aramaic versions of the New Testaments or were translated from Greek to Aramaic is still being debated by scholars today and is frankly not important in this discussion.

What is important is what the Peshitta says about this topic, since you, Ginger2, are using it for your argument about “Petros” and “Petra”. And we go directly to the heart of the matter, Matthew 16:16-19.

Peshitta.org provides an online Interlinear Aramaic-English Bible…and what do you think I read when I went to Matthew 16:16-19? Read it here.

I pasted a picture below of the Aramaic-English Matthew 16:15-19…and oh by the way, read from right to left. Please note what I highlighted in pink boxes and blue circles.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=6552&stc=1&d=1252592847

What does it say? It literally says (Matthew 16:18-19):

“Answered Yeshua and said to him, ‘Blessed are you Shimon, the son of Yona, because flesh and blood have not revealed (this) but my Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Keepa and on this Keepa I will build my Church, and the gates of Sheol will not subdue it,’ etc.”

Hmm…quite interesting ain’t it Ginger2?

So, you are claiming the Greek NT Mat 16 uses the Aramaic word cephus and not petros??? Where can I verify this claim?

Scholars don’t agree, but I’ll give you a chance to prove it.

Find a secular writing from the time of Jesus that uses petra and petros in the exact same manner.

That will settle it for me.

We don’t need to. The document you provided us, the Peshitta, already did.

 

[Ginger2]

I
The Peshitta, I found out, is the official Bible of the Assyrian Church of the East. The Church of the East purports it to be the truest, purest Bible because it was written in Aramaic, the original language of Jesus Christ and the apostles. ** Whether this Bible really contains the original Aramaic versions of the New Testaments or were translated from Greek to Aramaic is still being debated by scholars today and is frankly not important in this discussion.
**

It is very important. If the Peshitta is not the original wording, but a translation of the Greek, then Mat 16 is a scribal error.

If the Greek uses two different words,
and the Peshitta was translated from the Greek (which evidence supports)

Then the Peshitta is in error in its translation of Mat 16

So while you insist on accepting anything that supports what you already believe as proof, the fact is you have no evidence to support your theory.

Do you now believe the Peshitta is inspired and the Greek is flawed? That is what you are asserting by accepting something that contradict the authorized canon of the RC.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Ginger, the truth is the other way around. Non-Catholic scholars who have spent their lives studying this stuff have concluded that (a) Jesus spoke Aramaic and (b) the distinction between petra and petros is insignificant.

Do they know with 100% certainty? Then it is a mute point and we should stick to what we know God gave to us and quit changing the words to change the message for the purpose of somehow justifying a primacy that doesn’t exist.

1 Peter 1
20 For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you 21 who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God

Peter seems to know where the foundational truth comes from and it wasn’t Peter. Why don’t you just agree with Peter? Or do you also believe he is wrong?

1 Peter
It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven

1 Peter
1 Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, 2 shepherd the flock of God among you,

2Peter
1 This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2 that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and ***the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles. ***

Do you see how Peter viewed himself? Was Peter wrong?

It is very sad to dismiss the play on words of Jesus as you noted above as being in “insignificant”. I know you did not say it was insignificant; nor can you believe that, because in the Peterine Primacy argument; you must hold onto this.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Where does it say 12, why not 3, 7 or 144,000?

 

[kepha1]

So absolute truth is found in Catholic laypeople and scholars???

No, the Catholic Church does not claim to have the corner market on truth. But what she does claim is to have the Holy Spirit superindend the Church on matters of faith and morals, and this is never based on human scholarship alone as with Protestantism.

It is 49 pages of people’s opinions 99% of which is based on misunderstandings and misinformation.

No , I think for the most part, whatever my fellow Catholics’ opinions are in these 49 pages are in line with Catholic teaching. Catholics can have an opinion, Catholics can interpret scriptures. It’s when opinion and private interpretation is out of line with consistent, historical, authorative Church teaching. Believe it or not, we Catholics have much more freedom in interpreting scripture than Protestants, because Protestants are confined to so-called reformism which actually limits Scripture.* Divine Revelation, in both it’s modes of transmission (Scripture and Tradition) are given to us by the Church. The church does not come from the Bible, the Bible comes from the Church, and the opposite of this is the Protestant position that is is full of holes.

Before I get misrepresented, the Church is the servant of the scriptures, she is not above the Scriptures, and the Scriptures HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THE PRIMARY SOURCE FOR DOCTRINE, but not the only source, as there is not one word in the Bible that states it must be otherwise. The “infallible doctrine” held by most Protestants that only doctrines explicitly found in the Bible are trustworthy is a man-made doctrine.

 

[Luke65]

I have a handful of keys, 12 to be exact, and I say “I am giving each of you a key.” This is what Jesus is saying.

Good luck with that.

 

[MDK]

You overlook the complexity of the Greek; if it were in the plural, then there would be more than one key that “permits and refrains” or “loose and bind” or let one “into the gate of heaven or keep them out”; however since there is one authority or key; the the “you” is used in the singular and I discovered it must be that way because the object must match, with few exceptions. I was mistaken when I said it was plural. In fact, if were anyone other than singular, then it would not make sense unless there is more than a single key that opens the door to heaven, which Peter and the rest of the apostles were given the “Key” or “authority” which opens or shuts out people from heaven. he authority comes in and through the profession of Peter, the Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Here is the example: I have a handful of keys, 12 to be exact, and I say “I am giving each of you a key.” This is what Jesus is saying. I kept stumbling on the fact that “keys” was plural and the you was singular, which is a problem because the indefinite pronoun will act on the object. The clear object in this case is the “keys”, but it is a “single” key given to each one that solves the riddle. The substantive in the dative is given (or receives) the direct object of an active verb, or is given (or receives) the subject of a passive verb. If dative can be translated ‘to’ or ‘for’, then it is most likely an indirect object, which in this case is true. For further evidence in Scripture; look at Matthew 5:42 & Luke 6:30 as other examples.

We know from the day of Pentecost all of the apostles preached the word in a variety of tongues, Furthermore, we know the authority is given to all Christians that can articulate the gospel. This is real world reality that we see everyday and what is witnessed in the gospel.

You should be talking about reality? What you’ve written is sadly just fantasy.

Peter is the only one who received Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, just as the Prime Minister does from the King. Peter is therefore in a role of Prime Minister of Jesus’ earthly Kingdom, His Church. There is only one Prime Minister, one Church, one Body, one Lord and Savior.

For instance, you have no apostolic authority whatsoever.

 

[Randy_Carson]

1 Peter
1 Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, 2 shepherd the flock of God among you,

Do you see how Peter viewed himself? Was Peter wrong?

1 Peter 5:1 – Peter a “fellow elder”

Didja ever notice how Protestants try to belittle Peter by pointing to 1 Peter 5:1 where Peter calls himself a “fellow elder” and claiming that Peter was nothing special because he considers himself equal to all the other elders?

Do you think that maybe the fifth chapter of 1 Peter is all about humility, and that Peter is modeling the very behavior he is exhorting others to exhibit?

1 Peter 5:1-7
1To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. 5Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." 6Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. 7Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, some of the recipients of this letter might have been moved by seeing that Peter of all people had humbled himself by calling himself a mere “fellow elder”? Might they have been inspired to practice some humility, also?
I understand that modern day Protestant preachers on TV like to blow their own horns, but this is not what Jesus instructed the Apostles to do:

Mark 9:33-35
33They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?” 34But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest. 35Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all.”

Peter was first among the Apostles, and he viewed himself as the servant of all - a “fellow elder” - just as Jesus had taught him to do. Peter’s unwillingness to trumpet his own importance is evidence that he truly was “first” among the Twelve.

For this, our Protestant friends want to berate us for calling Peter the first pope?

:tsktsk:

 

[kepha1]

Great post, nuntym.

In addition to what you are saying, Randy, I think that when Protestants view the hierarchy of the Church, they may tend to think in terms of AT&T or General Motors, with the Pope being the CEO or a spiritual dictator. It’s a prevalent theme in anti-Catholic literature. The relationship that bishops have with bishops and bishops with the pope is very complicated, but essentially the Pope is the servant to the bishops. The Church is not pyramidal.

Another difficulty is language. The early Church did not use terms like “Supreme Pontiff”, or “First Among Equals”, or a host of other worthy titles. Papal Primacy had always existed, but that too developed along with other things that needed developing, such as the doctrine of the Trinity. Certain papal titles simply did not exist for centuries. Some of Protestantism has a very weak grasp of doctrinal development if any at all. Many of their churches still cling to the 16th century Nominalist world view and this may be the reason why doctrinal development looks so puzzling to them.

Peter was the bishop of Rome. That was his local jurisdiction. This is where Protestants get confused. Peter had the same jurisdiction over those in the area of Rome as any Apostle had in their local area. Pope Benedict VXI has the same jurisdiction in the diocese of Rome as Bishop Tonnos has in the diocese of Hamilton. Equal. But there is one difference. The OFFICE that my bishop holds is not directly descended from the OFFICE of Peter, but another Apostle. Only the bishop of Rome can have universal jurisdiction, PLUS local jurisdiction in the diocese of Rome. The Pope has two fold jurisdiction, and so did Peter.

This is evident at the Council of Jerusalem, where Peter speaks to/for the whole Church about circumcision, and James makes a temporary ruling for his diocese of Jerusalem about fasting from stangled meats. The roles are very disctinct, contrary to the Protestant smoke screen that erroneously makes James out to be the primary overseer of that council.

That Peter went to Rome or any other city has no bearing on his office. But I digress…

 

[nuntym]

It is very important. If the Peshitta is not the original wording, but a translation of the Greek, then Mat 16 is a scribal error.

If the Greek uses two different words,
and the Peshitta was translated from the Greek (which evidence supports)

Then the Peshitta is in error in its translation of Mat 16

So while you insist on accepting anything that supports what you already believe as proof, the fact is you have no evidence to support your theory.

Do you now believe the Peshitta is inspired and the Greek is flawed? That is what you are asserting by accepting something that contradict the authorized canon of the RC.

:doh2: I thought it was YOU Ginger2 who was appealing to the authority of the Peshitta!

groan that will teach me to not post waaaaaaaaay past bedtime :hypno::hypno:

But anyways

There are actually two words in the Peshitta used to translate the word rock/stone:

“Cephas” (ke’pha) is always used to translate the Greek word “lithos” which means a little stone and usually for “petros”, with the exception of Mat 16, of course.

The other word is “shu’a”. This word, which means a huge immovable rock, is used to translate the word “petra”, but never “lithos”.

In Mark 15:46, the tomb “hewn out of a rock (petra)” is called “shu’a” in the peshitta. The movable stone (lithos) in the same verse is called ke’pha.

shu’a = large rock - cephas = little rock

So, if we are going to use the Aramaic Peshitta to determine the true meaning of Mat 16, we again see Peter as a little rock, petros, and the petra is in question as to whether it is a translation error in light of the word shu’a being the translation in all other places, except Mat 16. But definitely the two are words for stones of two completely different sizes - one massive, the other small.

Uhm not always.

I want to point to you Matthew 27:60, in English, Greek, and Aramaic (from the Peshitta). For context I will first post Matthew 27:57-61 in English, using the New American Standard Bible which is the English text we are going to use in comparison. I underline verse 60:

When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who himself had also become a disciple of Jesus. This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock; and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away. And Mary Magdalene was there, and the other Mary, sitting opposite the grave.

As you can see, there are two “rocks” in the verse: the rock from which Joesph of Arimathea’s tomb was hewn (i.e. shaped out of), and the boulder which was placed over the entrance.

Now let us compare the English, Greek, and Aramaic versions of verse 60. Again please note that the Aramaic text is read from right to left:

English
and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock; and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away.
Source

Greek
kai eqhken auto en tw| kainw| autou mnhmeiw| o elatomhsen en th| petra|, kai proskulisav liqon megan th| qura| tou mnhmeiou aphlqen.
Source

Aramaic
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=6560&stc=1&d=1252637029
Source

 

[GottaGo12345678]

You should be talking about reality? What you’ve written is sadly just fantasy.

Peter is the only one who received Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, just as the Prime Minister does from the King. Peter is therefore in a role of Prime Minister of Jesus’ earthly Kingdom, His Church. There is only one Prime Minister, one Church, one Body, one Lord and Savior.

For instance, you have no apostolic authority whatsoever.

The reference to Isaiah 22:22 should provide you with additional information and proof concerning the single Key to the Kingdom. It is sad that you and others can’t see that Isaiah is referencing the Messiah.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

1 Peter 5:1 – Peter a “fellow elder”

Didja ever notice how Protestants try to belittle Peter by pointing to 1 Peter 5:1 where Peter calls himself a “fellow elder” and claiming that Peter was nothing special because he considers himself equal to all the other elders?

Do you think that maybe the fifth chapter of 1 Peter is all about humility, and that Peter is modeling the very behavior he is exhorting others to exhibit?

1 Peter 5:1-7
1To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. 5Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." 6Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. 7Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, some of the recipients of this letter might have been moved by seeing that Peter of all people had humbled himself by calling himself a mere “fellow elder”? Might they have been inspired to practice some humility, also?
I understand that modern day Protestant preachers on TV like to blow their own horns, but this is not what Jesus instructed the Apostles to do:

Mark 9:33-35
33They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?” 34But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest. 35Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all.”

Peter was first among the Apostles, and he viewed himself as the servant of all - a “fellow elder” - just as Jesus had taught him to do. Peter’s unwillingness to trumpet his own importance is evidence that he truly was “first” among the Twelve.

For this, our Protestant friends want to berate us for calling Peter the first pope?

:tsktsk:

No one has a view of Peter other than the view he had of himself; it is the Catholic Church and the people that have chosen by their own free-will, that puts Peter on a large pedestal to propagate the influence of the Magisterium over the lives of people. Peter called this “Lording” over the church. We just try to bring you back to the reality of what Scripture says.

For the rest of the post, I see a more humble and accurate portal the real of Peter.Stay right there and you will be on to something. But then at the end you sunk a little and put Peter up a few notches, where he would not agree.

We don’t berate you for calling a man a Pope; we want you to examine the legitimacy of the notion of a Pope in light of the Scripture.

 

[nuntym]

The reference to Isaiah 22:22 should provide you with additional information and proof concerning the single Key to the Kingdom. It is sad that you and others can’t see that Isaiah is referencing the Messiah.

[15]Thus says the Lord GOD of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him:
[16] What have you to do here and whom have you here, that you have hewn here a tomb for yourself, you who hew a tomb on the height, and carve a habitation for yourself in the rock?
[17] Behold, the LORD will hurl you away violently, O you strong man. He will seize firm hold on you,
[18] and whirl you round and round, and throw you like a ball into a wide land; there you shall die, and there shall be your splendid chariots, you shame of your master’s house.
[19] I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station.
[20] In that day I will call my servant Eli’akim the son of Hilki’ah,
[21] and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
[22] And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
[23] And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.
[24] And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father’s house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons.
[25] In that day, says the LORD of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a sure place will give way; and it will be cut down and fall, and the burden that was upon it will be cut off, for the LORD has spoken.”
Isaiah 22:15-25 (RSV)

:ehh: Excuse me, but are you saying that Jesus Christ is a mere STEWARD of the King?

 

[panevino]

why is there such fear about the idea about having a group of leaders/bishops with a head(pope) guiding the sheep. when jesus clearly appointed 12 with clear primacy to one, while we all share in the foundation in some way, there has got to be some management of the body.
this management (for lack of a better word) is clearly protected by the holy spirit
“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself: but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak; and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. …” jn 16:12 jesus to apostles i think

while i can understand the reason for protestant fear it does seem to me to ignore what is revealed in the bible (ie: bishops as overseers). obviously this would take alot of bible references to show, i guess my comment is more focused on wherther the fear is substantiated or not.

 

[kepha1]

In addition to nuntym’s post:

**Isa. 22: 19 **I will thrust you from your office, and you will be pulled down from your station.

Shebna is described as having an “office” and a “station.” An office, in order for it to be an office, has successors. In order for an earthly kingdom to last, a succession of representatives is required.
This was the case in the Old Covenant kingdom, and it is the case in the New Covenant kingdom which fulfills the Old Covenant. Jesus our King is in heaven, but He has appointed a chief steward over His household with a plan for a succession of representatives.

Isa.22:20 In that day I will call my servant Eli’akim the son of Hilki’ah,

Isa. 22:20 - in the old Davidic kingdom, Eliakim succeeds Shebna as the chief steward of the household of God. The kingdom employs a mechanism of dynastic succession. King David was dead for centuries, but his kingdom is preserved through a succession of representatives.

Isa.22:21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.

Isa. 22:21 - Eliakim is called “father” or “papa” of God’s people. The word Pope used by Catholics to describe the chief steward of the earthly kingdom simply means papa or father in Italian. This is why Catholics call the leader of the Church “Pope.” The Pope is the father of God’s people, the chief steward of the earthly kingdom and Christ’s representative on earth.

Isa.22:22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Isa. 22:22 - we see that the keys of the kingdom pass from Shebna to Eliakim. Thus, the keys are used not only as a symbol of authority, but also to facilitate succession. The keys of Christ’s kingdom have passed from Peter to Linus all the way to our current Pope with an unbroken lineage for almost 2,000 years.

23: And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.

Rev. 1:18; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1 - Jesus’ “keys” undeniably represent authority. By using the word “keys,” Jesus gives Peter authority on earth over the new Davidic kingdom, and this was not seriously questioned by anyone until the Protestant reformation 1,500 years later after Peter’s investiture.

Revelation 3:7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: `The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.

Matthew 16:19 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."

Matt. 16:19 - whatever Peter binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven / when the Prime Minister to the King opens, no one shuts. This “binding and loosing” authority allows the keeper of the keys to establish “halakah,” or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves.

Jer. 33:17 For thus saith the Lord: There shall not be cut off from David a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel.

Jeremiah prophesies that David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the earthly House of Israel. Either this is a false prophecy, or David has a successor of representatives throughout history.

Dan. 2:44 But in the days of those kingdoms the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, and his kingdom shall not be delivered up to another people, and it shall break in pieces, and shall consume all these kingdoms, and itself shall stand for ever.

Daniel prophesies an earthly kingdom that will never be destroyed. Either this is a false prophecy, or the earthly kingdom requires succession.

 

[Ginger2]

**Didja ever notice how Protestants try to belittle Peter by pointing to 1 Peter 5:1 **]

1 Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, 2 shepherd the flock of God among you,

How is this verse, in any way, belittling?

Do you think that maybe the fifth chapter of 1 Peter is all about humility, and that Peter is modeling the very behavior he is exhorting others to exhibit?

“Do you think that maybe” Peter considered himself an equal among Apostles?

Is there any place where Peter asserts his authority as head of the entire church? You know,… by saying something like, “With the authority given me by Christ,…”?

I understand that modern day Protestant preachers on TV like to blow their own horns, but this is not what Jesus instructed the Apostles to do:

Every non-Catholic preacher is not a Protestant Pastor. It would be good if Catholics would study the Bible and learn how to discern a false prophet from a fellow Christian.

It would also help you learn to listen to what people are actually saying rather than assume you know what they believe in contradiction of their proclaimations.

For this, our Protestant friends want to berate us for calling Peter the first pope?:

Again I ask, How is quoting Peter’s words about being a fellow elder, leader of the church, berating him?

Ginger

 

[Dogface_Soldier]

That would be a very good explanation if the information presented was factual and true, but it is not.

There are different words used for big and little rock formations in Aramaic, also. If you look at the Peshitta and compare Gospel verses translating the words petra and petros, you can clearly see the difference, which suggests Matthew 16:18 is a translation error.

there may be a distinction amongst types of rock or stone in Syriac or Aramaic; however, the text of Mattich 16:18 in the Peshitta uses “Keepa” as both Simon bar Jona’s name, and as the foundation of Jesus’ church.

i don’t know if your point is merely that there are different words for rock types in Sriac languages, or that different words were used in the Peshitta. The former is true, but the latter is demonstrably not. Moreover, the availability of several words for rock in these languages lends greater support to the Catholic reading of this verse.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

[15]Thus says the Lord GOD of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him:
[16] What have you to do here and whom have you here, that you have hewn here a tomb for yourself, you who hew a tomb on the height, and carve a habitation for yourself in the rock?
[17] Behold, the LORD will hurl you away violently, O you strong man. He will seize firm hold on you,
[18] and whirl you round and round, and throw you like a ball into a wide land; there you shall die, and there shall be your splendid chariots, you shame of your master’s house.
[19] I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station.
[20] In that day I will call my servant Eli’akim the son of Hilki’ah,
[21] and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
[22] And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
[23] And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.
[24] And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father’s house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons.
[25] In that day, says the LORD of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a sure place will give way; and it will be cut down and fall, and the burden that was upon it will be cut off, for the LORD has spoken.”
Isaiah 22:15-25 (RSV):ehh: Excuse me, but are you saying that Jesus Christ is a mere STEWARD of the King?

Jesus called Himself a servant, but as you Catholics are spurious at doing; look at the names and the meaning of these names, then you will see better. Also, you might start at verse 20; that is where the description of the Son of God begins.

20 "Then it will come about in that day,
That I will summon My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah,
21 And I will clothe him with your tunic
And tie your sash securely about him.
I will entrust him with your authority,
And he will become a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
22 "Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder,
When he opens no one will shut,
When he shuts no one will open.
23 "I will drive him like a peg in a firm place,
And he will become a throne of glory to his father’s house.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

why is there such fear about the idea about having a group of leaders/bishops with a head(pope) guiding the sheep. when jesus clearly appointed 12 with clear primacy to one, while we all share in the foundation in some way, there has got to be some management of the body.
this management (for lack of a better word) is clearly protected by the holy spirit
“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself: but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak; and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. …” jn 16:12 jesus to apostles i think

while i can understand the reason for protestant fear it does seem to me to ignore what is revealed in the bible (ie: bishops as overseers). obviously this would take alot of bible references to show, i guess my comment is more focused on wherther the fear is substantiated or not.

If it were clear, it would not be an issue; it is very obscure at best and leads to a severe violation and clear rejection of the word of God. The only fear is for your soul. However; no man can convince another man of the things of God; that is not the work of man; it is the work of God alone. Something I believe we all agree.

John 16:13 applies to those whom fully put their trust in Christ alone.

 

[Ginger2]

:doh2: I thought it was YOU Ginger2 who was appealing to the authority of the Peshitta!

groan that will teach me to not post waaaaaaaaay past bedtime :hypno::hypno:

lol I Can relate.

I want to point to you Matthew 27:60, in English, Greek, and Aramaic (from the Peshitta).]

I have considered this verse too, as one example.

Please compare this same story in Mark 15:46 in the Peshitta.

Which one is the correct translation? Why do you think so?