Proving or disproving the papasy of Peter as the first Pope, using scripture alone

[Mintaka]

Actually, you have to watch that pronoun “you”. It makes a lot of difference in certain passages whether the Lord is using the Greek 2nd person singular or plural (you or y’all), and He does switch back and forth. This is why older Bibles retained the distinction between thou/thee/thy/thine and ye/you/your for such a long time – longer than it stayed in regular speech. They wanted to show the singular/plural distinction.

 

[crmcfl]

Matthew 16:18-20 “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.”

I’m not sure what it is you’re confused about. It all seems pretty clear.

 

[juno24]

What more? I’ll need some first, before I need more. The reason Paul sought the other’s is b/c he was a well known presecuter of the christians. he couldn’t just go out proclaiming Christ, he would have be killed. He had to find the others to affirm the faith of the ppl in him.

Hello, SoonerServant. I don’t post a whole lot in this particular forum since the discussions go way too fast for me to be able to keep up. However, I noted that your prerequisite (per the title of this thread) is that everything, pro or con, must be in Scripture. Kindly tell me where in Scripture you found the above statement about Paul having to affirm the peoples’ faith in him with the Apostles before he was allowed to go out and preach. If I recall correctly, Paul began preaching almost immediately after Annanias laid hands upon him, which was before he met the Apostles. While the Jews certainly were plotting to kill him, and the disciples did not trust him, Paul was indeed already preaching about Christ.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The fact is, nowhere on scripture does it say Peter had more authority than the other Apostles. Like I’ve said before, Paul had to correct Peter in his errant ways. So who is the Popes correction. What if he starts discriminating against other races? Just b/c someone steps up more often than others, doesn’t mean he’s chosen. Maybe I should be the Pope, I like to be a spokesman. Lack of evidence, means it’s wrong. (99% right is?)

Sooner-

Before you continue too much farther down this path, you need to understand the critical distinction between infallibility and impeccability.

Impeccability means that one is incapable of sin. Catholics do not claim this characteristic for their Church or Pope.

Infallibility means that one is incapable of teaching error. This does not mean that one is always right or that everything someone says is correct.

Popes have sinned because they are human.

Popes have not taught error because the Holy Spirit has prevented them from doing so.

Infallibility does not come from man’s ability; it is because of what God has done in protecting His Church from error.

As for being Pope, you already are. Don’t you get to decide for yourself what the Bible means and which doctrines are true? The problem is that as Pope of your own “domestic church”, you are not infallible.

 

[Eschato]

God renamed many of the great men of the bible. He often did this when he had a specil purpose for them. This is nothing new. He renamed Abram, Jacob and even the Apostle Paul.

Yes, and what do their respective names mean… context, context, context.

 

[Maranatha]

I see that you didn’t mention the part later on when Jesus is talking to all the discples and he repeats himself. The thing you say He told “exclusively” to Peter.

The Catholic Church teaches that all the bishops in union have magisterial authority. This is in line with the part of scripture where Jesus gives the right to forgive sins to all the Apostles in Mt. 181:18

The Catholic Church also recognized the successor of Peter as having magisterial authority individually consistent with Mt. 16:18-19.

Only the Catholic Church is consistent in apply all parts of scripture and not picking and choosing which part to emphasize and follow.

 

[Maranatha]

Here is (KJV) LK 5:1-3

1: And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret,
2: And saw two ships standing by the lake: but the fishermen were gone out of them, and were washing their nets.
3: And he entered into one of the ships, which was Simon’s, and prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land. And he sat down, and taught the people out of the ship.

Here you see that Jesus taught from Peter’s boat and not the other. Do you want to be in the other boat of the one that Jesus is teaching from?

 

[Volodymyr_988]

Once again, I refer everyone to St. John’s Gospel in which Sts. Nathaniel and Mary of Bethany make the same Confession of Faith that St. Peter does. Our Lord never proclaims them blessed, He never says that the Father revealed it to them, and He never changes their names!

And Papacy is spelled with a C not an S.

 

[Church_Militant]

The is a continuation of my quest for the truth concerning Catholic doctrines and traditions. Though the subject is specifically as the title states, I am open for proof or disproof of other Cathic doctrines and traditions.

Nope. If you want to discuss Catholic teachings, pick one and make your best case and then deal with them one at a time.

Just as the forum rules specify.

One topic…One thread.

BTW, if you’ll click http://70.85.23.3/images/editor/switchmode.gif (up in the right corner of your reply to thread toolbar.) then you’ll discover that the software will begin to auto check your spelling and that will help your posts be better.
Pax tecum,

 

[SoonerServant]

Yes, in John 1:49, Nathaniel does make the same confession, but then Jesus goes on to say,“I tell you the truth, you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and decsending on the Son of Man.” Does this mean that he is the only one who is going to see this? Is it recorded that he EVER saw this.

 

[SoonerServant]

He is saying that ANYONE who confesses Jesus as the one true Son of the living God will see this.

 

[Church_Militant]

Yes, in John 1:49, Nathaniel does make the same confession, but then Jesus goes on to say,“I tell you the truth, you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and decsending on the Son of Man.” Does this mean that he is the only one who is going to see this? Is it recorded that he EVER saw this.

He is saying that ANYONE who confesses Jesus as the one true Son of the living God will see this.

Total non-sequitur and twisted interpretation without substance since neither passage relates to this one.

You seem to enjoy boxing with straw men. For a guy whose battle cry is “context, context, context” you certainly violated it there.

I see you still haven’t activated the spell check feature for your post…

 

[SoonerServant]

Militant, honestly, grow up. I now understand the ppl of whom Paul was speaking when he said,"…I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child…"

 

[SoonerServant]

I wasn’t talking to you when I said that. I was correcting one of YOUR mislead buddies.

 

[SoonerServant]

Let me see the earliest writing you have that mentions the pope.

 

[mercygate]

Concerning Mt. 16:19.

There is no substantial evidence that proves Jesus was talking to Peter. However, if you turn to chapter 18:18, you see here, as stated at the beginning of the chapter, that Jesus is talking to all the Apostles. Thus, he gave all the Apostles and every christian the right to bind and loose.

No substantial evidence? How about that Jesus uses the “thou” form in Mt. 16:18-19? Y’know: “thou” as in ‘you’ (one person).

Show us where Jesus gives every Christian the right to bind and loose. In my King James Bible (the most frequently favored Protestant source) and in every other translation, in Mt. 18:18, Jesus is addressing only the 12. You have to go back to chapter 17 to see that, but remember the Bible was not written in chapters and verses. They were added centuries later.

You asked for Scriptural support for the papacy and of Peter’s primacy. Fighting Fat showed you some 80-plus scriptural references, showing Peter’s exceptional position among the Apostles. You might quibble with any one of them individually as not supporting his position as “first” (which is Matthew’s characterization, even though Peter is not the first called, so don’t say that Catholics made it up), but taken all together they certainly drive the point to an undeniable conclusion – using Scripture alone. That FightingFat was able to post such a blizzard of scriptural support for the Catholic position even though the Catholic Church has the witness of the actual practice and teaching of the early Church should give you a good idea of the soundness of the case.

In another of your posts you counter that God changed names of “many” people. I disagaree. More accurately, it is “a few important people.”

And I strongly reject your statement that God changed Saul’s name. Show me in Scripture (to use your own criterion) where it says that God changed Saul’s name. Don’t bother. You can’t. It is not there. Just as it is not there that Jesus gave the power of binding and loosing to all Christians.

If you are going to quote Scripture at me, then at least quote what the scriptures **really **say and not what you think they say, or want them to say, or have been told they say.

 

[Church_Militant]

(Edited by Moderator)

I wasn’t talking to you when I said that. I was correcting one of YOUR mislead buddies.

As I said before, use the quote feature like everyone else and we’ll know.

Besides…your post is open to comments by anyone on the whole forum. It’s not my fault it is baseless propaganda.

 

[mercygate]

He is saying that ANYONE who confesses Jesus as the one true Son of the living God will see this.

You are referring to Jesus’ words to Nathanael. Where does it say that anyone who confesses Jesus as the one true Son of the living God will see the angels of God ascending and descending upon the son of man? In that passage at the end of the first chapter of John, the only people there with Jesus are Philip and Nathanael.

It makes a nice devotional gloss to say that anyone who confesses Jesus as the Son of God and King of Israel (to better approximate the acclamation than you have) will see the angels ascending and descending upon the Son of man, but the text does not say that.

 

[mercygate]

Let me see the earliest writing you have that mentions the pope.

Sooner, we’re playing by your rules here: Scripture only. I say, deal with Fighting Fat’s blizzard of scriptural references before you ask us to give you an equivalent blizzard from early Church history.

I would say that you have your hands full – and nobody even mentioned Isaiah 22:22.

Here ya go: :bible1: . Enjoy!

 

[SoonerServant]

Sooner, we’re playing by your rules here: Scripture only. I say, deal with Fighting Fat’s blizzard of scriptural references before you ask us to give you an equivalent blizzard from early Church history.

I would say that you have your hands full – and nobody even mentioned Isaiah 22:22.

Here ya go: :bible1: . Enjoy!

Ok, lets talk about Isaiah 22:22

After, Eliakim has been summoned and given the keys, he’s described as a peg being driven in to a firm place. Tell me, what happens in verse 25.