W
Will_Pick
Guest
Where is the Biblical proof that the Papacy existed prior to Siricius (384 AD - 399 AD)???
- Status
T
thistle
Guest
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
There are a number of things which I can point out. I will give a few very quick hits for now; if you are interested in any of these more deeply, ask and you shall receive (the answers, that is 
)
)- When Christ is risen, others arrive at the tomb first, but everybody waits for Peter so that he may enter the tomb first (John 20)
- Peter is indicated as the representative of the Apostles by the angel in Mark 16:7
- Peter, in his role of leadership, calls for the replacement of Judas (Acts 1)
- Peter is mentioned 191 times in the NT - 60% of all the times any desciple is mentioned. This is important. In the US, we have many leaders, from governors to senators to secrataries of state and defense and so forth. In foreign countries, which of these is mentioned most? The President, because he is the leader and he is the figurehead and he is the person everyone is familiar with. Peter was mentioned most because he, as the leader, was the Apostle most familiar to those who would be reading the gospel.
- After his conversion, Paul made it a point to see Peter specifically. As a new Apostle, he wished to/needed to “check in” with the leader
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
I posted this a while back:
Simon’s name is literally changed to Rock.
John 1:42
“And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Rock.)”
It would be exactly the same as if I said to you, “You will be called Rock,” then started saying things like, “Hey Rock, what’s up?” or, “I saw Rock at the store the other day,” or, “Hey have you talked to Rock lately?”
So when Jesus says that to Peter in Matthew, He is saying, “Simon, you are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my Church.”
In fact, the name “Peter” is nothing more than the Greek word for rock, “Petros,” being represented in English. Whenever we see the word “Peter” in our English Bible, if we turn to the same passage in the Greek it says, “Petros.”
Jesus spoke Aramaic, and so He named Simon the Aramaic word for Rock: Cephas. So, when the Apostles would call him, they’d say, “Hey Cephas come over here!” (except the Hey come over heare would be in Aramaic obviously).
This makes it very interesting that Matthew (and the other Gospel writers) chose to write the Greek word for rock, Petros, instead of the actual name, Cephas. Think about translations of the book “Les Miserables” from French into English. Names, like Jean, are kept in their original language even though all the other words, like “go” and “run” and “eat” and “he” and “cat” are translated into English. Now, the French name Jean is equivalent to the English name John. Nevertheless, translators keep the names in the original language because a name is not like another word. A name is just a way of referring to people. if a fellow from France named Jean came over here to the US and people started calling him John, he’d be confused or offended because that’s not his name even though it means the same thing.
So it is incredibly interesting that the Gospel writers wrote the Greek word for rock, Petros, in their Gospels instead of the man’s actual name which was Cephas. This shows very clearly that Rock absolutely means something. Throughout all of the other Scriptures, we see many examples where New Testament Greek writers kept the original names in the original languages of Old Testament people instead of writing their Greek equivalent. For instance, the name “Moses” means “taken from” (or something similar), because he was taken from the river. But when the Gospel writers mention the transfiguration, do they say, “and standing their with Him were Taken From and Elijah?” No, they wrote “Moses and Elijah.” Similarly, Abraham means something along the lines of “Father of Many.” When the NEw Testament writers refer to Abraham, do they write, “Father of Many?” No, they write “Abraham.” They do this because these things were these people’s names.
But when talking about Simon, the writers don’t just write Cephas, which is his name. Instead, they write “Petros,” which has the same meaning as Cephas, but is totally different. It is incredibly clear from this that the Gospel writers wanted very clearly to indicate that this man literally was “Rock.” They didn’t care about saying what his name was. They cared about saying that he was Rock.
Simon’s name is literally changed to Rock.
John 1:42
“And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Rock.)”
It would be exactly the same as if I said to you, “You will be called Rock,” then started saying things like, “Hey Rock, what’s up?” or, “I saw Rock at the store the other day,” or, “Hey have you talked to Rock lately?”
So when Jesus says that to Peter in Matthew, He is saying, “Simon, you are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my Church.”
In fact, the name “Peter” is nothing more than the Greek word for rock, “Petros,” being represented in English. Whenever we see the word “Peter” in our English Bible, if we turn to the same passage in the Greek it says, “Petros.”
Jesus spoke Aramaic, and so He named Simon the Aramaic word for Rock: Cephas. So, when the Apostles would call him, they’d say, “Hey Cephas come over here!” (except the Hey come over heare would be in Aramaic obviously).
This makes it very interesting that Matthew (and the other Gospel writers) chose to write the Greek word for rock, Petros, instead of the actual name, Cephas. Think about translations of the book “Les Miserables” from French into English. Names, like Jean, are kept in their original language even though all the other words, like “go” and “run” and “eat” and “he” and “cat” are translated into English. Now, the French name Jean is equivalent to the English name John. Nevertheless, translators keep the names in the original language because a name is not like another word. A name is just a way of referring to people. if a fellow from France named Jean came over here to the US and people started calling him John, he’d be confused or offended because that’s not his name even though it means the same thing.
So it is incredibly interesting that the Gospel writers wrote the Greek word for rock, Petros, in their Gospels instead of the man’s actual name which was Cephas. This shows very clearly that Rock absolutely means something. Throughout all of the other Scriptures, we see many examples where New Testament Greek writers kept the original names in the original languages of Old Testament people instead of writing their Greek equivalent. For instance, the name “Moses” means “taken from” (or something similar), because he was taken from the river. But when the Gospel writers mention the transfiguration, do they say, “and standing their with Him were Taken From and Elijah?” No, they wrote “Moses and Elijah.” Similarly, Abraham means something along the lines of “Father of Many.” When the NEw Testament writers refer to Abraham, do they write, “Father of Many?” No, they write “Abraham.” They do this because these things were these people’s names.
But when talking about Simon, the writers don’t just write Cephas, which is his name. Instead, they write “Petros,” which has the same meaning as Cephas, but is totally different. It is incredibly clear from this that the Gospel writers wanted very clearly to indicate that this man literally was “Rock.” They didn’t care about saying what his name was. They cared about saying that he was Rock.
A
asteroid
Guest
Perhaps the “papacy” as a name didn’t exist until that date. But the office existed and the new name didn’t affect the office, or its history from Peter onwards, in the slightest.
Using similar logic as in this thread, where is the Biblical proof that Christians existed before there were converts in Antioch?
If the name defines the office or the person then there were no Christians until they were first called Christians in Antioch.
This of course is nonsense, just as it is nonsense to imply that there was no such thing as a pope just because no one had invented the term yet for the man and office, or no such doctrine as transubstantiation until 1215.
There were Popes before Siricius used the term - they were just called something else. As the saying goes, a spade by any other name is still a spade.
Using similar logic as in this thread, where is the Biblical proof that Christians existed before there were converts in Antioch?
If the name defines the office or the person then there were no Christians until they were first called Christians in Antioch.
This of course is nonsense, just as it is nonsense to imply that there was no such thing as a pope just because no one had invented the term yet for the man and office, or no such doctrine as transubstantiation until 1215.
There were Popes before Siricius used the term - they were just called something else. As the saying goes, a spade by any other name is still a spade.
- Status