A
Aris
Guest
Where does it say in the Bible?
Or are you quoting another source?
Or are you quoting another source?
- Status
J
jphilapy
Guest
First Paul calls for the elders:
*Act 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church. *
Then he refers to the elders as bishops.
*Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, *
*to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. *
Paul writes to Titus telling him to ordain elders:
*Tit 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders *
*in every city, as I had appointed thee: *
Then Paul refers to the same elders as bishops:
*Tit 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no *
striker, not given to filthy lucre;
Paul writing to Timothy mentions the two order leadership of Bishops and Deacons:
*1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, *
*apt to teach; *
*1Ti 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; *
Again Paul writing to the Phillippians refers to the two order system:
*Phi 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the *
*bishops and deacons: *
Peter writing to Christians references the elders as overseers.
1Pe 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
1Pe 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
Clement writing to Corinth:
Mentions the two order leadership in Chapter XLII:
*And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them *
by the Spirit,181 to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.
In Chapter XLII. Clement states that this two order system was foretold by scripture:
*Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the *
*Scripture in a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops182 in righteousness, and their deacons183 in faith."184 *
Mentions the Elders:
Chapter LVII
*Ye therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to *
*repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your *
tongue.
And there are more references to the leaders as elder through his letter.
You can see the whole letter at: ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-05.htm
A couple more things to notice:
In acts 15 when the apostles sent the letter to the gentiles they addressed it from:
Act 15:23 “The apostles and elders”
Also notice that Clement’s letter is addressed from the plural:
NOTE: I think it is important to consider that deacons were probably never included in making decisions.
“Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention”
**Also of note is that 6 of the letters ignatius wrote all contained exhortations for the congregations to submit to their **
Bishop. The only letter that contained no such exhortation was Romans. Two possibilities exist as far as I can see.
- Ignatius didn’t think he needed to exhort them to obey their bishop. However what other evidence can we go on here to
support this claim? The other letters show no indication that he needed to exhort them to submit to their bishop. - Ignatius didn’t exhort them to obey their bishop because Rome was not yet under a single bishop.
All scripture verses are from the KJV.
So based on that information it seems to me that the Church of Rome where Clement was at the time consisted of multiple bishops and they like the apostles and elders in acts 15 made a corporate descision in addressing the issues of other churches.
Jeff
Q
Quo_Vadis
Guest
1 Kings 2:19
When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down at his right hand.
1 Kings 2:18-20 (in Context) 1 Kings 2 (Whole Chapter)
Result pages:1
Now think about who sits at the right and left hand of Jesus in heaven Hint The Person sitting to the left of Jesus has Jesus sitting to His right… And as Jesus points out, it is not His to give.
Also, Peter is not supreme over the Church. Jesus is the Head of the Church and our Father is supreme over all things. Whats more, once a Pope dies he is no longer the Vicar of Christ, his authority is strictly an earthly one, although no doubt it can bring them great honor in heaven.
J
jphilapy
Guest
Quo Vadis:
“The Second Vatican Council teaches that the Bishop of Rome, as Vicar of Christ, has supreme and universal power over the whole Church”
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930224en.html
This is from the vatican website:
“The Second Vatican Council teaches that the Bishop of Rome, as Vicar of Christ, has supreme and universal power over the whole Church”
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930224en.html
L
liber8ed217
Guest
Whether the RCC wants to admit it or not, the office of the pope relies solely on the passage in Matthew 16:13-20. However, the interpretation of this passage by the RCC is (what I believe) incorrect insomuch as the Rock spoken of is Jesus Himself… look at the original text which is a “play-on” words by Christ…
J
jeffreedy789
Guest
that’s precisely incorrect. the church does NOT base its teaching SOLELY on this verse, as the church does not practice sola scriptura. the church’s teachings on the primacy of peter are based on the teachings of the church.
J
jphilapy
Guest
So are you saying the church doesn’t need proof that the teaching is the same the apostles held?
Jeff
M
mercygate
Guest
Writings of the early Church are full of it, as you know from other threads.
P
plakamhil
Guest
Originally posted by liber8ed217
<<Whether the RCC wants to admit it or not, the office of the pope relies solely on the passage in Matthew 16:13-20. However, the interpretation of this passage by the RCC is (what I believe) incorrect insomuch as the Rock spoken of is Jesus Himself… look at the original text which is a “play-on” words by Christ…>>
In the same paragraph, in the same sentence Jesus being at the same time the BUILDER and the ROCK upon which He builds?
Plakamhil
<<Whether the RCC wants to admit it or not, the office of the pope relies solely on the passage in Matthew 16:13-20. However, the interpretation of this passage by the RCC is (what I believe) incorrect insomuch as the Rock spoken of is Jesus Himself… look at the original text which is a “play-on” words by Christ…>>
In the same paragraph, in the same sentence Jesus being at the same time the BUILDER and the ROCK upon which He builds?
Plakamhil
M
mercygate
Guest
Catholics can understand the fact that non-Catholics MUST reject the plain sense of Mt 16:18-20. Many of us in our past have done just that.
But don’t reject it by ignoring or misrepresenting Greek and Aramaic grammar. All the big-rock/little rock arguments depend on Greek that had vanished 400 years before this Gospel was written. And the direct translation from the Aramaic is simply “rock,” “rock,” Don’t try to pretend that this doesn’t say what it says.
Moreover, the primacy of Peter is based on far more than this passage, which you might reasonably be expected to know if you are participating in this thread.
M
MarkPerz
Guest
I need to disagree with the statement that Paul did not consult with the other apostles. We see that he did, at the beginning of chapter 2 in Galatians.
2:1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2:2 I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain.
(Paul later names James, Peter and John as “those who were of repute”).
Here, Paul presents to the apostles the Gospel that he received through a direct revelation from Christ, seemingly to confirm the veracity of what he has been preaching.
Something else that I think is interesting is that he was prompted by revelation to go to Jerusalem… to confirm what he had been teaching.
Yes? No ?
J
jphilapy
Guest
Howdy Mark,
I didn’t realize there was a reply here. I thought this thread was dead
Well here are my thoughts as to why I come to the conclusion I did:
Paul says he went up and saw Peter and James 14 years before he went to Jerusalem. So if he was going to consult them then he would have done it then. So I don’t believe he went up to jerusalem to consult them. I mean 14 years of preaching has to get notice from some of the apostles right?
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.
And before that Paul says:
Gal 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Paul was already preaching before he talked to Peter or James. According to Acts, after he was baptized, he immediately began preaching in the synagogues. I have to figure that immediatly means ‘before he went into Arabia’? Undoubtably before he talked to Peter or James.
Jeff
M
MarkPerz
Guest
A dead thread that we thought was put to bed, but was continued with another post instead…
Oh, brudder…
Anyway…
Greetings Jeff
I considered that too, and it seems logical, but I don’t think the text really supports the supposition.
We need to remember the reason Paul made the trip to Jerusalem. The issue was whether or not circumcision is necessary for salvation (Acts 15). It seems that Paul either was unable to answer the question definitively, or he was simply unable in his argument to convince the men from Judea. So he made the trip to present the question to “those who were of repute” (Gal 2:2), where Paul “laid before them the Gospel that I preach” (Gal 2:2), and he made his case for his own decision.
In both Acts 15: 8-11 (by the author Luke’s account) and Galatians 2:3 (Paul’s account), you see that “those who were of repute” were the ones to decide the matter. And, whether it was only this one issue that Paul meant “the gospel which I preach”, or if it was number of issues, or the whole gospel, you see him deferring the decision to the apostles.
On the question of the fourteen years, there are two things that make me doubt your conclusion.
First, Paul states in Galatians “2:6-9 …*those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me, but when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised… and when they perceived the grace that was given to me…” *I would think that the apostles would have been able to perceive that grace at their first meeting with Paul.
Second, if they did accept Paul’s “apostleship” (how do you like that word?) at their first meeting, why did they not give him “the right hand of fellowship” (Gal 2:9) at that time?
Oh, brudder…
Anyway…
Greetings Jeff
I considered that too, and it seems logical, but I don’t think the text really supports the supposition.
We need to remember the reason Paul made the trip to Jerusalem. The issue was whether or not circumcision is necessary for salvation (Acts 15). It seems that Paul either was unable to answer the question definitively, or he was simply unable in his argument to convince the men from Judea. So he made the trip to present the question to “those who were of repute” (Gal 2:2), where Paul “laid before them the Gospel that I preach” (Gal 2:2), and he made his case for his own decision.
In both Acts 15: 8-11 (by the author Luke’s account) and Galatians 2:3 (Paul’s account), you see that “those who were of repute” were the ones to decide the matter. And, whether it was only this one issue that Paul meant “the gospel which I preach”, or if it was number of issues, or the whole gospel, you see him deferring the decision to the apostles.
On the question of the fourteen years, there are two things that make me doubt your conclusion.
First, Paul states in Galatians “2:6-9 …*those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me, but when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised… and when they perceived the grace that was given to me…” *I would think that the apostles would have been able to perceive that grace at their first meeting with Paul.
Second, if they did accept Paul’s “apostleship” (how do you like that word?) at their first meeting, why did they not give him “the right hand of fellowship” (Gal 2:9) at that time?
J
jphilapy
Guest
ROFL! Nice!A dead thread that we thought was put to bed, but was continued with another post instead…
Oh, brudder…
Anyway…
Greetings Jeff
You make some good points. Let me think about this and get back to you on it.
Jeff
F
fcfahs
Guest
Hi All,
First I must say that I applaud the dialog going on between jphilapy and MarkPerz (Jeff and
Mark). Their posts are full of content and totally devoid of childish bashing - just as it should
be on a Christian forum.
From the scripture and tradition they cited to justify their respective convictions, and the rigor
of their analysis, it’s clear that they’re both not only well read, but also very profound thinkers.
Indeed, I have learned a lot from reading their posts and sincerely hope that neither of them
“bails out” before they arrive at a mutually agreeable understanding of Matt. 20:20-28.
That being said, I would like someone (preferably Jeff and Mark) to critique the footnote
intepretations of Matt. 16:17-19, found in the Genesis Bible, as they apply to this thread…
Matthew 16 (Genesis Bible)
17 (4) And Jesus answered, and said to him, Blessed art thou, Simon, the son of Jonah:
for (k)** flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.**
(4) Faith is of grace, not of nature.
(k) By this kind of speech is meant man’s natural procreation upon the earth, the creature not
being destroyed which was made, but deformed through sin: So then this is the meaning: this
was not revealed to thee by any understanding of man, but God shewed it thee from heaven.
18 (5) And I say also unto thee, that thou art () (l) Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my Church: and the (m) gates of hell shall not overcome it.
(5) That is true faith, which confesseth Christ, the virtue whereof is invincible.
() John 1:42
(l) Christ spake in the Syrian tongue, and therefore used not this descanting between Petros,
which signifieth Peter, and Petra, which signifieth a rock, but in both places used this word
Cephas: but his mind was that wrote in Greek, by the divers termination to make a difference
between Peter, who is a piece of the building, and Christ the Petra, that is, the rock and
foundation: or else he gave his name Peter, because of the confession of his faith, which is the
Church’s as well as his, as the old fathers witness: For so saith Theophylact. That confession
which thou haft made, shall be the foundation of the believers.
(m) The enemies of the Church are compared to a strong kingdom, and therefore by Gates,
are meant cities which are made strong with counsel and fortresses, and this is the meaning
whatsoever Satan can do by counsel or strength. So doeth Paul, 2 Corinthians 10:4 call
them strongholds.
19 (6) ***And I *() will give unto thee the
keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and
whatsoever thou shalt (o) bind upon earth, shall be bound in heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.
(6) The authority of the Church is from God.
() John 20:21
A metaphor taken of stewards which carry the keys: and here is set forth the powerof
the ministers of the word, as Isaiah 22:12. and that power is common to all ministers, as
Matthew 18:18. and therefore the ministers of the gospel may rightly be called the key of
the kingdom of heaven.
(o) They are bound whose sins are retained; heaven is shut against them, because they
received not Christ by faith: on the other side, how happy are they, to whom heaven is
open, which embrace Christ, and are delivered by him, and become fellow heirs with him.
Thanks to all.
Frank
First I must say that I applaud the dialog going on between jphilapy and MarkPerz (Jeff and
Mark). Their posts are full of content and totally devoid of childish bashing - just as it should
be on a Christian forum.
From the scripture and tradition they cited to justify their respective convictions, and the rigor
of their analysis, it’s clear that they’re both not only well read, but also very profound thinkers.
Indeed, I have learned a lot from reading their posts and sincerely hope that neither of them
“bails out” before they arrive at a mutually agreeable understanding of Matt. 20:20-28.
That being said, I would like someone (preferably Jeff and Mark) to critique the footnote
intepretations of Matt. 16:17-19, found in the Genesis Bible, as they apply to this thread…
Matthew 16 (Genesis Bible)
17 (4) And Jesus answered, and said to him, Blessed art thou, Simon, the son of Jonah:
for (k)** flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.**
(4) Faith is of grace, not of nature.
(k) By this kind of speech is meant man’s natural procreation upon the earth, the creature not
being destroyed which was made, but deformed through sin: So then this is the meaning: this
was not revealed to thee by any understanding of man, but God shewed it thee from heaven.
18 (5) And I say also unto thee, that thou art () (l) Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my Church: and the (m) gates of hell shall not overcome it.
(5) That is true faith, which confesseth Christ, the virtue whereof is invincible.
() John 1:42
(l) Christ spake in the Syrian tongue, and therefore used not this descanting between Petros,
which signifieth Peter, and Petra, which signifieth a rock, but in both places used this word
Cephas: but his mind was that wrote in Greek, by the divers termination to make a difference
between Peter, who is a piece of the building, and Christ the Petra, that is, the rock and
foundation: or else he gave his name Peter, because of the confession of his faith, which is the
Church’s as well as his, as the old fathers witness: For so saith Theophylact. That confession
which thou haft made, shall be the foundation of the believers.
(m) The enemies of the Church are compared to a strong kingdom, and therefore by Gates,
are meant cities which are made strong with counsel and fortresses, and this is the meaning
whatsoever Satan can do by counsel or strength. So doeth Paul, 2 Corinthians 10:4 call
them strongholds.
19 (6) ***And I *() will give unto thee the
keys of the Kingdom of heaven, andwhatsoever thou shalt (o) bind upon earth, shall be bound in heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.
(6) The authority of the Church is from God.
() John 20:21
A metaphor taken of stewards which carry the keys: and here is set forth the powerofthe ministers of the word, as Isaiah 22:12. and that power is common to all ministers, as
Matthew 18:18. and therefore the ministers of the gospel may rightly be called the key of
the kingdom of heaven.
(o) They are bound whose sins are retained; heaven is shut against them, because they
received not Christ by faith: on the other side, how happy are they, to whom heaven is
open, which embrace Christ, and are delivered by him, and become fellow heirs with him.
Thanks to all.
Frank
S
SFH
Guest
Simon Peter is Cephas, the Rock on which Christ builds His Church. To Simon the Rock alone are given the rabbinical keys to resolve doctrinal issues and include and exclude people from Christ’s church.
He is the spokesman for the Apostles before and after Christ’s death and resurrection.
He confirms the other Apostles in their faith.
He feeds Christ’s sheep.
This unique position of St. Peter is transfered to his successors the Popes.
St. Irenaeus bears witness to the infallibility and unique orthodoxy of the Roman bishops compared to all other bishops. Even though Rome is deluged with more heretics than any other city, it keeps its doctrine pure.
St. Jerome also bears witness.
To St. Augustine, “St. Peter has spoken; the issue is decided. Would that the controversy were too.”
The church historians Eusebius, Socrates, and Sozoman witness to an ancient ecclesiastical canon that no decree of a council of bishops is valid unless approved by the bishop of Rome.
The defining moment comes during the Arian heresy when Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria succumb to the Arian heresy. Only Julius, the Roman bishop, holds the Nicene faith, the faith of the Apostles. Paul, bishop of Constantinople, and Athenasius, bishop of Alexandria, both orthodox bishops, flee to Julius after their churches expel them. The Roman bishop affirms the faith of Paul and Athenasius, and armed with letters from Julius, they reclaim their sees.
After the Arian heresy, the orthodoxy and infallibility of the bishop of Rome becomes more widely recognized.
Subsequent ecumenical councils recognize the supremecy of the sees founded by St. Peter or his disciples (e.g., Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria). Rome is given primacy.
What was understood vaguely and imperfectly at first, in the light of history, becomes apparent to all Catholics. The Roman bishop, by a special prerogative and grace of God, when speaking as bishop of Rome and head of the Catholic Church on matters of faith and morals has not and cannot lead the people into error.
He is the spokesman for the Apostles before and after Christ’s death and resurrection.
He confirms the other Apostles in their faith.
He feeds Christ’s sheep.
This unique position of St. Peter is transfered to his successors the Popes.
St. Irenaeus bears witness to the infallibility and unique orthodoxy of the Roman bishops compared to all other bishops. Even though Rome is deluged with more heretics than any other city, it keeps its doctrine pure.
St. Jerome also bears witness.
To St. Augustine, “St. Peter has spoken; the issue is decided. Would that the controversy were too.”
The church historians Eusebius, Socrates, and Sozoman witness to an ancient ecclesiastical canon that no decree of a council of bishops is valid unless approved by the bishop of Rome.
The defining moment comes during the Arian heresy when Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria succumb to the Arian heresy. Only Julius, the Roman bishop, holds the Nicene faith, the faith of the Apostles. Paul, bishop of Constantinople, and Athenasius, bishop of Alexandria, both orthodox bishops, flee to Julius after their churches expel them. The Roman bishop affirms the faith of Paul and Athenasius, and armed with letters from Julius, they reclaim their sees.
After the Arian heresy, the orthodoxy and infallibility of the bishop of Rome becomes more widely recognized.
Subsequent ecumenical councils recognize the supremecy of the sees founded by St. Peter or his disciples (e.g., Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria). Rome is given primacy.
What was understood vaguely and imperfectly at first, in the light of history, becomes apparent to all Catholics. The Roman bishop, by a special prerogative and grace of God, when speaking as bishop of Rome and head of the Catholic Church on matters of faith and morals has not and cannot lead the people into error.
M
MarkPerz
Guest
Frank, thanks for the compliment, but I must be honest that, when it comes to analysis, understanding and interpretation of scripture, compared to others on this website (both Catholic and Protestant) I am really a lightweight. Because your above quote, I’m almost afraid to respond at all. I can’t think of another example of so gross an over statement or “over rating” since… well… Ryan Leaf ???
SFH has already offered a nice response to part of your post. That is the kind of response that I am least able to offer.
BUT, I’ll give my best shot at (at least some of) the comments. Understand that I know nothing of the ancient languages, and even Old (Archaic) English gives me problems. So, I, for my part, will address these, one item at a time as it will take some time to interpret the comments and then formulate my answers. Shoot, sometimes it takes me an hour to simply type a single paragraph to say what I want to say.
I agree with this analysis totally. However, we need to remember that Jesus asked all twelve apostles the question, “But who do you say that I am?” Mt 16:15. I think we can assume that all twelve apostles, (or, at least eleven, save possibly Judas Iscariot) by virtue of their being selected by Jesus as apostles received the grace of faith.
In reference to (k), Jesus is responding to Simon’s declaration that, “You are the Christ, the son of the living God.” A revelation given, by grace, through faith, to Simon alone. Hence Jesus’ words, “Blessed are you, Simon son of John…”
F
fcfahs
Guest
Hi SHF,
you will also take some time to address my request (in post #55) for a critique of the Genesis Bible footnotes for Matt.16:17-19, for these footnotes render an entirely different and equally
reasonable perspective on “the Rock” upon which Jesus built his church - a perspective that, until very recently, I was not familiar with.
Although this webpage provides links to the following two articles, I want to link you to them here, just so you don’t miss them. The first is entitled “Some Thoughts On Matthew 16:18,”
and the second “Aramaic Kepa, Shua.”
that the only way to truth is NOT to ignore opposing views, but to address them headlong and
reduce them to absurdity (if possible). If we can’t, then there’s a very real problem!
Code:
Welcome aboard and thank you for your summary of the RCC's teachings on Matthew 16:17-19,
Matthew 20:20-28 and the surpremecy of the pope - teachings I'm pretty familiar with. Hopefully,reasonable perspective on “the Rock” upon which Jesus built his church - a perspective that, until very recently, I was not familiar with.
Code:
If you have difficulty (as I did) coming to grips with the rather unusual wording of these footnotes,
the same ideas are more clearly and more fully expounded on [this webpage](http://jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/Scr/hebm.htm), which addresses
the questions "What has happened to the original Hebrew of Matthew?" and "How does our
current Greek text relate to that original Hebrew?"and the second “Aramaic Kepa, Shua.”
Code:
To be sure, these articles are in direct opposition to the RCCs call on Matthew 16:18, but I feelreduce them to absurdity (if possible). If we can’t, then there’s a very real problem!
Code:
With advanced thanks for your subsequent (name removed by moderator)ut, I shall look forward to your reply(s).
Frank
F
fcfahs
Guest
Hi Mark,
I could have guessed that you are also very humble. Anyway, thanks for jumping on my request
for an objective critique of the Genesis Bible footnotes, referenced in my post #55.
I certainly hope you take a peek at the links I provided in post #58, as you “tackle” the footnotes
for Matthew 16:18-19.
Frank
I could have guessed that you are also very humble. Anyway, thanks for jumping on my request
for an objective critique of the Genesis Bible footnotes, referenced in my post #55.
I certainly hope you take a peek at the links I provided in post #58, as you “tackle” the footnotes
for Matthew 16:18-19.
Frank
- Status