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

[SoonerServant]

Wrong, you have proven nothing. There is no scriptural evidence to imply a position such as the Popes, that is to be passed on. Thus, Peter was not a pope at all. He simply filled a leadership role placed apon him at the founding of the church.

I never denied that Petre filled a leader ship role. I said that didn’t give him more power than the other Apostles.

And you can’t even say that the Gates of Hell will prevail against the church, because that’s a universal lie. We already know who wins this fight. Even if the material church on earth is overcome, the spiritual church God established will never be broken.

 

[dbacks5439]

And you can’t even say that the Gates of Hell will prevail against the church, because that’s a universal lie. We already know who wins this fight. Even if the material church on earth is overcome, the spiritual church God established will never be broken.

And the book, chapter, and verse that describes Jesus as establishing the “spiritual” church?

 

[mercygate]

SoonerServant:

I never denied that Petre filled a leader ship role. I said that didn’t give him more power than the other Apostles.

So what do all of Fighting Fat’s quotations mean to you, and with respect to Mt 16:18-19, how do you interpret the promise of the keys and the power of binding and loosing which he gives to Peter alone in this text? In Mt 18:18 the binding and loosing is shared with the other eleven but nevertheless the original authority of binding and loosing is to Peter, to whom alone is promised the kekys.

You use the word “power.” Although that is not inappropriate, the Catholic position would tend to cast this in the light of authority rather than of personal power. The *Catechism *puts it this way:

1. Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: “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.” The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: “Feed my sheep.” The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.

 

[Church_Militant]

SoonerServant:

Exactly, that’s what I’m saying. Show me the proof that GOD chose the popes, past or present.

SoonerServant:

Show me that Peter gave the next “pope”, his position.

Show me that Peter gave ANYONE his postion.

Hey…it’s your contention that He did not, so it’s your job to prove your case with facts.

As I’ve told you before.

Don’t sing it…bring it!

 

[mercygate]

SoonerServant:

I never denied that Petre filled a leader ship role. I said that didn’t give him more power than the other Apostles.

Sooner: Yes or no:

In Mt. 16:18-19, Jesus says that Peter is the rock upon which he will build his Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

Yes or no.

 

[jmcrae]

The fact is, nowhere on scripture does it say Peter had more authority than the other Apostles.

Does John 21:15-19 ring a bell? Check your facts again; you missed one.

 

[jmcrae]

Show me that Peter gave ANYONE his postion.

Jesus gave Peter the ability to pass on his office to another in Matthew 16:18, where He quotes directly from Isaiah 22:22 - if you read the whole of Isaiah 22, you see that it’s talking about a successional office that is passed from one person to the next over a period of many generations.

 

[RNRobert]

SoonerServant:

I don’t have a problem with Peter being a leader, that’s obvious. I do have a problem with saying he had more power and authority. He didn’t.

Well, leaders generally DO have more power and authority (at least in all the jobs I’ve ever held.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Concerning Mt. 16:19.

There is no substantial evidence that proves Jesus was talking to Peter.

13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi 9 he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, 10 others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 **Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” **
17 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.
18
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.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Note the bolded sections. Jesus is obviously speaking to Simon, son of Jonah, and calls him Peter.

Notice the italicised words, “you.” In the Greek, these are all in the singular, not in the plural. Jesus is speaking to one man. And it ain’t Zoe Zug the Ragman!

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.

So where do you find that in the passage below?

1 At that time the disciples approached Jesus and said, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
2 He called a child over, placed it in their midst,
3 and said, "Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, 3 you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5 And whoever receives one child such as this in my name receives me.
6 "Whoever causes one of these little ones 5 who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
7 Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!
8 If your hand or foot causes you to sin, 7 cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or crippled than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into eternal fire.
9 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into fiery Gehenna.
10 "See that you do not despise one of these little ones, 9 for I say to you that their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my heavenly Father.
11 [Some manuscripts add, “For the Son of Man has come to save what was lost”; ]
12 What is your opinion? If a man has a hundred sheep and one of them goes astray, will he not leave the ninety-nine in the hills and go in search of the stray?
13 And if he finds it, amen, I say to you, he rejoices more over it than over the ninety-nine that did not stray.
14 In just the same way, it is not the will of your heavenly Father that one of these little ones be lost.
15 "If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
16 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
18 Amen, 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.

Now, do you say this gives you the power to loose and bind? Do you claim to have the power to forgive sins?

 

[Joseph_Smith]

I think the real answer to this question has to come from the rest of the book. Peter some 30 years After being called the rock wrote 1 Peter 2, 2 thru 5 In verse 4 peter speaks of he Living stone rejected indeed by man, ( Jesus the Christ )
In the book of revelations we see that 12 foundations that are build upon. Notice we do not know which foundaiton is laid first. That is because it is not important, Our foundation is not laid of man but of God. Jesus is the chief cornerstone which is rejected by the chief builders. That could be the real problem and the real question.
Let us consider Paul for a moment.
Romans 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
Ephesians 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
You could read that to indicate the only apostle given tot he gentles is Paul. But all the apsotles preached to all the gentles they could i am sure so was paul the apostle to the gentiles, sure he was was he any different then any other apostles yes and no. Paul was a redeemed sinner just like Peter and all the apostles. These men all had a encounter with God that could not be denied. Peter Paul Mark Luke ect are all very important to the kingdom of God.
But the truth be told God is not a respector of persons. And he does not give any one of them better standing then the rest of them. These men were chosen to by Christ for his purpose not our purpose. Each of these men were sinners just like all men but they were touched by Grace and by Love and were transformed into men of God. Each of them still sinned after meeting Christ. But do we all have to overcome sin?
So the catholic church claims Paul is the first pope. Does it amount to a hill of beans? I say he was not. The greatest problem with that teaching is that it takes away from the Glory of Christ. Christ Spirit is what makes the church. To him alone is the Glory and the Honor of the Church. Christ said i shall never leave you nor depart from you. He is even present now. Christ is the head of the chruch as far as i am the father are concerned. The Holy Spirit is with the ministers of the chruch.
Christ church is not about his followers it is about Christ, God the father created the chruch to follow Christ and to Glorify Christ. So Peter is apostle and he points to Christ. I have been blessed to be allowed to point to Christ also. So in disputing about peter and his role were is Christ lifted up. Do not disputes come from th evil one. Let us put on the meat of the word that we may lay aside the vainity of the ages and turn to the hope of the ages.
Is Peter not a servent and Christ Lord. Is a servant greater then his Lord. Indeed not. So should we contend over whom is greater as children tosed about as wheat in a strong wind. Let us consider the saying of Christ he who is greatest is he who is servent to all. Christ was a servent to all. Peter was a hired servent nothing more and nothing less. As we all are.
Christ when he took the 5 bread loaves and the 2 fish, lifted them up heaven and blessed them and then feed the multitude, After the feeding of the people they took up 12 baskets of both bread and fish. Do you know know the meaning of these events. The meaning is clear. The 5 loaves are the 5 books of the torah, the two fish are the spirit of the Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The 12 baskets are the 12 apostles and fish and bread taken up are jews and gentiles who will be taken up in the rapture. You will notice no one apostle is exalted in that over another apostle. God is not a respector of persons.
In that the catholic church teaches that peters spirit is with he Pope, it would have to be ask then were are the rest of the 11 apostles spirits and who are they upon. What other 11 churchs did God creat. In other words confusion exist. No were in the bible do we find this idea of spirit transfer. We find the transfer of the anointing. That is not a spirit transfer. That is a anointing. I am anointed, was it recycled, no it was given due to obidence to God and allowing his will in my life.
By the way i am a apostle also, does that make me great no. Am i above Christ orthe Holy Spirit. indeed not. Yeat i bear witness to the faith as all the apostles do. Do i seek my own glory indeed not. I am counted as a fool for christ sake. A outcast before men. Beated and rejected by people who call themselfs the body of Christ. And i have seen Christ and have spoke with Christ and know the father. Yeat i count it nothing. but to know him and his suffering i count it all. Are you willing to give him all. That is the price. Peter gave all, Paul gave all,
The answer that you so greatly seek is in this scripture. He who recieves a prophet in a prophets name recieves a prophets reward, he who recieves a rightious man in a rightious man name recieves his reward. When you understand this scripture you will know about peter and his role.

 

[LilyM]

And you can’t even say that the Gates of Hell will prevail against the church, because that’s a universal lie. We already know who wins this fight. Even if the material church on earth is overcome, the spiritual church God established will never be broken.

What a load of bunk. Jesus right from the beginning CHOSE people and groomed them to be leaders of his very much EARTHLY and institutional church - namely the Apostles, and Peter in particular among them. The Gospels very specifically state that Jesus himself explained all the hard parables to the Apostles alone - not to everyone. Clearly he was taking extra pains with them because he intended them to be earthly leaders of a real institutional church, not just members of some airy-fairy ‘spiritual church’. What on earth does that mean anyway?

To say otherwise is to say that he founded nothing at all on Peter, nor indeed on any of the Apostles.

 

[mercygate]

. . . So the catholic church claims Paul is the first pope. Does it amount to a hill of beans? I say he was not. The greatest problem with that teaching is that it takes away from the Glory of Christ.

I make it a point not to respond dismissively and harshly when confronted with this kind of statement but here I go, violating my own principle. Joseph, this statement of yours is perfect rot! The Cahtolic Church does not claim Paul is the first Pope. And does it matter “a hill of beans” that it claims that Peter is the first pope: YES. And it in no way, shape or form takes one scintilla of Glory away from Christ. If you are going to reject what the Catholic Church teaches, at least have enough respect for yourself and for us to reject what the Church REALLY teaches.

Christ Spirit is what makes the church. To him alone is the Glory and the Honor of the Church. Christ said i shall never leave you nor depart from you. He is even present now. Christ is the head of the chruch as far as i am the father are concerned. The Holy Spirit is with the ministers of the chruch.
Christ church is not about his followers it is about Christ, God the father created the chruch to follow Christ and to Glorify Christ. So Peter is apostle and he points to Christ.

Insofar as it is possible to follow what you say – and you don’t make it easy – I believe we agree.

I have been blessed to be allowed to point to Christ also. So in disputing about peter and his role were is Christ lifted up. Do not disputes come from th evil one. Let us put on the meat of the word that we may lay aside the vainity of the ages and turn to the hope of the ages.
Is Peter not a servent and Christ Lord. Is a servant greater then his Lord. Indeed not. So should we contend over whom is greater as children tosed about as wheat in a strong wind. Let us consider the saying of Christ he who is greatest is he who is servent to all. Christ was a servent to all. Peter was a hired servent nothing more and nothing less. As we all are.
Christ when he took the 5 bread loaves and the 2 fish, lifted them up heaven and blessed them and then feed the multitude, After the feeding of the people they took up 12 baskets of both bread and fish. Do you know know the meaning of these events. The meaning is clear. The 5 loaves are the 5 books of the torah, the two fish are the spirit of the Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The 12 baskets are the 12 apostles and fish and bread taken up are jews and gentiles who will be taken up in the rapture. You will notice no one apostle is exalted in that over another apostle. God is not a respector of persons.

The point of the primacy of Peter is not about exaltation, it is about the unity of the Church and about how that unity is maintained throughout the ages.

In that the catholic church teaches that peters spirit is with he Pope, it would have to be ask then were are the rest of the 11 apostles spirits and who are they upon. What other 11 churchs did God creat. In other words confusion exist. No were in the bible do we find this idea of spirit transfer. We find the transfer of the anointing. That is not a spirit transfer. That is a anointing.

Again, you are not easy to follow, but please point me to a Catholic source that says the Peter’s spirit is with the Pope. It’s going to be a long wait.

I am anointed, was it recycled, no it was given due to obidence to God and allowing his will in my life.

What on earth does this have to do with the topic?

By the way i am a apostle also, does that make me great no.

You are not using the word Apostle the way Scripture uses the word.

Am i above Christ orthe Holy Spirit. indeed not. Yeat i bear witness to the faith as all the apostles do. Do i seek my own glory indeed not. I am counted as a fool for christ sake. A outcast before men. Beated and rejected by people who call themselfs the body of Christ. And i have seen Christ and have spoke with Christ and know the father. Yeat i count it nothing. but to know him and his suffering i count it all. Are you willing to give him all. That is the price. Peter gave all, Paul gave all,
The answer that you so greatly seek is in this scripture. He who recieves a prophet in a prophets name recieves a prophets reward, he who recieves a rightious man in a rightious man name recieves his reward. When you understand this scripture you will know about peter and his role.

I mean this as a query to help me to asses what you are trying to say: Is English your native language?

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

“I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 18:18)

Jesus says this a second time, so he must have really meant it when he said it the first time. In this passage, Jesus is speaking to all the disciples, not just Peter. From this we learn that the Church is infallible just as the Pope individually is infallible.

Of course, he didn’t restate the part about the keys - this was a distinction given to Peter alone.

 

[LilyM]

 So the catholic church claims Paul is the first pope. Does it amount to a hill of beans? I say he was not. The greatest problem with that teaching is that it takes away from the Glory of Christ. Christ Spirit is what makes the church. To him alone is the Glory and the Honor of the Church. Christ said i shall never leave you nor depart from you. He is even present now. Christ is the head of the chruch as far as i am the father are concerned. The Holy Spirit is with the ministers of the chruch.

It boils down to what you think the church IS. Clearly every minister of every denomination sins, the ministers of the non-Catholic denominations blatantly contradict each other on EVERY point on which it is possible to do so, many teach blatant untruth and heresy about Christ. Certainly most if not all are sincere in their beliefs. All CLAIM to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Is the Holy Spirit with all of them all the time though? Rubbish! It’s not even possible.

Compare this to the Catholic way. One heavenly Lord, One truth through Him, One Holy Spirit, ONE CHURCH, ONE ultimate and authoritative leader of that Church (Peter, by the way, not Paul ). Not division and contradiction and multiple teachings and blatant heresy which is the hallmark of the non-Catholic denominations.

The Catholic way is is the only way all Christians can hope to even nearly be One as Christ and the Father are one, as he wanted.

 

[JaneFrances]

I never denied that Petre filled a leader ship role. I said that didn’t give him more power than the other Apostles.

Sooner, you are talking in circles now. Either the keys mean something or they don’t. Either Christ gave them to Peter or he didn’t. It’s that easy.

The keys are a symbol of authority. If “power” is a scary word for you, don’t use it. Christ gave Peter alone the keys to his kingdom. This means that Christ gave Peter authority he did not give to the other Apostles. This is Scripture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoonerServant
Exactly, that’s what I’m saying. Show me the proof that GOD chose the popes, past or present.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoonerServant
Show me that Peter gave the next “pope”, his position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoonerServant
Show me that Peter gave ANYONE his postion.

I realize you feel backed into a corner here such that you are abadoning your OP and shotgunning for a way out. However, I would remind you that all you originally asked for was proof that Peter was given unique authority among the Apostles. We did that.

If you would like to further discuss how successors to the Apostles were and are chosen, start a new thread. This is a good topic.

If you would like to further discuss how God has provided His Church with visible leadership throughout Christendom, start a new thread. We’ll be there.

If you would like to further discuss how the Roman epsicopate was passed on, start a new thread. I’ll be glad to participate.

BUT, don’t toss out questions that will only serve to distract this thread from your original challenge which has been met with prompt attention and answered entirely.

You, however, have yet to admit your own misinterpretation of Isaiah 22 and you also have not acknowledged the meaning of the keys as a sign of God-given authority. Both of these topics are essential to your understanding the Scriptural basis for Petrine primacy and the papacy.

 

[JaneFrances]

SoonerServant:

Wrong, you have proven nothing. There is no scriptural evidence to imply a position such as the Popes, that is to be passed on. Thus, Peter was not a pope at all. He simply filled a leadership role placed apon him at the founding of the church.

It is quite clear by this statement that you have no idea of the role of the papacy.

The papacy is a leadership role. It is precisely based upon the fundamental truth that Christ Himself entrusted Peter with the keys to His kingdom. This is Scriptural.

 

[Penitus]

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?)

Rebuking someone doesn’t mean they don’t have authority over you. For example, in her lifetime, St. Catherine of Sienna rebuked the Pope. Does that mean St. Catherine of Sienna had more authority than the Pope? No.

I hope that helps.

 

[jmcrae]

Rebuking someone doesn’t mean they don’t have authority over you. For example, in her lifetime, St. Catherine of Sienna rebuked the Pope. Does that mean St. Catherine of Sienna had more authority than the Pope? No.

I hope that helps.

That’s quite true - even in modern business, a lowly employee may sometimes find himself with the duty to inform the owner of his company that she is doing something illegal, or that she is doing something that will harm the business.

It’s really important for the ultimate success of the business that the employee mention his concerns to the owner, or else they will all find themselves unemployed, and the owner might even find herself in jail.

Just because someone is the leader in charge in no way means that nobody is allowed to tell them anything. Nor does it take anything away from their authority when someone does that - indeed, the fact that they chose that person to speak to means that that person is the one with the authority to change things, to get the whole organization moving in the right direction - which is what leaders do.

 

[Erich]

SoonerServant:

I don’t have a problem with Peter being a leader, that’s obvious. I do have a problem with saying he had more power and authority. He didn’t.

Au, contraire!

In John’s gospel (John 21:15-17) Jesus – addressing himself specifically to Peter – charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” and “feed my sheep.” “Tending” and “feeding” are metaphors for governing and teaching, a clear indication that Christ intended Peter to govern and teach his “sheep,” i.e., the whole Church.

And don’t forget that In Luke’s gospel (Luke 22:31-32) Jesus – again addressing himself specifically to Peter – says, “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you (plural, referring to the Twelve) like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

Au, contraire!

In John’s gospel (John 21:15-17) Jesus – addressing himself specifically to Peter – charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” and “feed my sheep.” “Tending” and “feeding” are metaphors for governing and teaching, a clear indication that Christ intended Peter to govern and teach his “sheep,” i.e., the whole Church.

And don’t forget that In Luke’s gospel (Luke 22:31-32) Jesus – again addressing himself specifically to Peter – says, “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you (plural, referring to the Twelve) like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”

Ironically, some very strong evidence for the early Church’s regard for Peter and his successors comes from heretical sources.

Imagine some poor Gnostic writing about how Christ took James aside and “filled” him. “Hmmm, that won’t fly!! That would make James the head of the Church. I better say He took James and Peter aside.”

Or, “I’ll say Bartholomew went to Mary and asked her about carrying the Christ. Hmmm . . . I better say he talked it over with Peter first, though.”