The papacy

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChristianSurfer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ChristianSurfer

Guest
From Matt 16 peter is given the role to be rock, from which I understand is not based off his character.

In Matthew 16:22 he speaks on his own accord
22 Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, “God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.”
23
He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”
Ive looks this up but Ive only seen explanations on Galatians 2 because it wasn’t his teaching where he was wrong

Is his rock role carried out only after when in Luke 22:32
But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.
How do I explain the contrasting line in Matt 16:22?

Also when said Papal Infallibility as it pertains to faith and morals, What does that pertain to the councils? the catechism?
 
Hi Christian,

The Church is born on the day of Pentecost. That is when infallibility kicks in.

Verbum
 
Matthew 16 is a later addition or interpolation by the Roman church. Another example would be the sermon on the mount.
 
Matthew 16 is a later addition or interpolation by the Roman church. Another example would be the sermon on the mount.
Would you mind showing us the **primary sources **that make this claim?
 
From Matt 16 peter is given the role to be rock, from which I understand is not based off his character.

In Matthew 16:22 he speaks on his own accord

Ive looks this up but Ive only seen explanations on Galatians 2 because it wasn’t his teaching where he was wrong

Is his rock role carried out only after when in Luke 22:32

How do I explain the contrasting line in Matt 16:22?

Hi Everyone

The truth shall set you free.

Let’s take a read at Jesus’ statement (Mat 16:18) (KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The name Peter means " a piece of rock", or a “stone”. Reading in (John 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.

Therefore, Peter’s name ( Cephas) means stone- a rolling stone. Therefore, the “rock” that is mentioned in Mat. 16:18 is not Peter. The " rock" is Jesus Christ, in which the true church will be built upon. We read in 1 Peter 2: 6-8, that Jesus is our chief cornerstone and our rock of offense.

Paul tells the Corinthians who the “rock” is… (1Co 10:4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

In the verse below the wise man will build his faith upon the “rock”, upon Jesus.

(Mat 7:24) Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

At the time of Moses, Jesus was the rock…(Deu 32:4) He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

The final point of Mat. 16:18 is that it states that " the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it". If " it" and the the “rock” were Peter… this statement would be conflicting because the gates of Hades did prevail against him (Peter) when he denied the Lord with cursing and swearing. When the “rock” and “it” are Jesus Christ the Gates of Hades will never prevail.

May the holy spirit dwell in us all and give us truth to His word.
 
Let’s take a read at Jesus’ statement (Mat 16:18) (KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
The name Peter means " a piece of rock", or a “stone”. Reading in (John 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.
Therefore, Peter’s name ( Cephas) means stone- a rolling stone. Therefore, the “rock” that is mentioned in Mat. 16:18 is not Peter. The " rock" is Jesus Christ, in which the true church will be built upon. We read in 1 Peter 2: 6-8, that Jesus is our chief cornerstone and our rock of offense.
You’ve grabbed verses here and there then tied them together to form a belief. Sometimes, this works, but to work well, this method must not contradict the basic principles of hermeneutics and exegesis.

The first principle is to base any interpretation of Scripture to its specific context: verse, chapter, book, and Testament.

Let’s take a look at how that plays out.

Matthew 16:17-19: "Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (NIV)

This is the full context of what you cited. Since Peter means rock, and from what follows in verses 18-19, the obvious interpretation is that Peter, the first of the Apostolic ministry, is the rock, who will receive the “keys of the kingdom.”

As to the “…gates of Hades will not overcome it…”, the logical interpretation would be against the Church, the Body of Christ, not Peter.

If we tie the two interpretations above together, the result will read something like: Jesus builds His church on the rock–Peter, as the first leader of the Apostolic ministry, and the gates of hell will not prevail against that church, which is the Body of Christ.
Paul tells the Corinthians who the “rock” is… (1Co 10:4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
1 Corinthians 10:1-4: “For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3They all ate the same spiritual food 4and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.” [NIV]

The wandering Jews drank from “spiritual rock…Christ.” Paul typed the Exodus to salvation of believers through Jesus. Jesus is the rock from which we drink, and we–believers–are the Body of Christ. But the rock on which Jesus built the church was the Apostolic ministry represented initially by Peter. Support of this interpretation can be based on the first twelve books of Acts, which clearly portray Peter as the leader and chief spokesman of the early church.
In the verse below the wise man will build his faith upon the “rock”, upon Jesus.
(Mat 7:24) Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
Matthew 7:24-28: “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.” (NIV)

Your interpretation is not supported by the full context of these verses. In fact they more easily agree with Matthew 16:17-19. Believers build their houses on the words of Jesus, which they receive through the rock, the Apostolic ministry, in the church, the Body of Christ. Of course, believers also have to put those words into practice.
At the time of Moses, Jesus was the rock…(Deu 32:4) He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
Deuteronomy 32:4: “He is the Rock, his works are perfect,
and all his ways are just.
A faithful God who does no wrong,
upright and just is he.”

This verse certainly coincides with 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, but this Rock from which we drink, is not the church, except as the church is the Body of Christ. This is not the rock of Matthew 16:17-19. Jesus undeniably named Simon Peter then told Peter He would build His church upon Peter, and “the gates of Hades” would “not prevail against it. (the church)”
The final point of Mat. 16:18 is that it states that " the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it". If " it" and the the “rock” were Peter… this statement would be conflicting because the gates of Hades did prevail against him (Peter) when he denied the Lord with cursing and swearing. When the “rock” and “it” are Jesus Christ the Gates of Hades will never prevail.
You’ve confused the subject of the pronoun. The rock was Peter. The “it” was the church, which was built on the Apostolic ministry initiated by Peter as previously cited.
 
Richard

do you believe that the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” are the “word of God”?
 
Matthew 16 is a later addition or interpolation by the Roman church. Another example would be the sermon on the mount.
Sorry, a bunch of random internet links to people I’ve never heard of don’t trump the Bible in my opinion.

What is their scholarly background? Religious affiliation? Come on, you can do better than that.
 
That is just a small sampling of some Phd scholars who have studied the Bible critically. There are many more. Why don’t you look up Dr. Raymond Brown (Catholic) or Dr. Domenic Crossan (Catholic) if you think I’m only giving you non-Catholic scholars.
If you look at the Bible critically, you’ll see it in a very different light.
 
That is just a small sampling of some Phd scholars who have studied the Bible critically. There are many more. Why don’t you look up Dr. Raymond Brown (Catholic) or Dr. Domenic Crossan (Catholic) if you think I’m only giving you non-Catholic scholars.
If you look at the Bible critically, you’ll see it in a very different light.
With respect, you (and they) weren’t ‘there’ in the early Christian Church. Speculations 2000 years later meant (at least by the Catholics) to posit a kind of ‘ecumenism’ (praiseworthy intention, poor implementation) and by non-Catholics to continue to implode Christianity and remake it in the ‘individual image’ don’t work.’

FYI the Catholic Church existed before the Bible. I would trust its authority in interpretation over individuals, Protestant OR Catholic. If you are Catholic, you should do the same, I believe.
 
Sorry, a bunch of random internet links to people I’ve never heard of don’t trump the Bible in my opinion.

What is their scholarly background? Religious affiliation? Come on, you can do better than that.
Totally agree with you. The Bible is the highest authority on God’s word.
 
Totally agree with you. The Bible is the highest authority on God’s word.
Unfortunately that is not what the Bible its self says… 🙂

Scripture actually states that Christ is the Word of God. Furthermore it states that the Church is the pillar and protector of truth. The Church, as the Body of Christ is uniquely qualified… 🙂

You dont really believe that an inanimate object is a higher authority on Christ than the Body of that very Christ do you?
 
Neither were you there…and very likely neither were the 12 “apostles” who have left no hard evidence of their actual existence.

Also, you are seriously misinformed if you think that the “Catholic” church predates the NT. BTW, you weren’t specific about that were you? The Hebrew scriptures are much older than the NT.

The earliest letters in the NT are from Paul, the true founder of Christianity. At least the ones we know are legit and not forgeries in Paul’s name. Funny how Paul knows little to nothing about the life of “Jesus”. Yet, he wrote about Jesus first. The “gospels” according to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John came several generations after the supposed life of the Jesus character. Ask yourself this question. Why are the gospels named after these “apostles” when we know today they are anonymous works? Was someone trying to fool someone into believing? It sure seems that way. It was the Roman church branch of Christianity which finally won out over the various competing sects of Christianity. The winners do write the history books. Have you ever thought of this possibility?

I was raised a Catholic, but due to a habit of thinking for myself, I eventually saw through the religious propaganda. I still consider myself a cultural Catholic, just like the other 75% of Catholics who never go to church. The only difference is that I know why I don’t go to church anymore.
 
Neither were you there…and very likely neither were the 12 “apostles” who have left no hard evidence of their actual existence.

Also, you are seriously misinformed if you think that the “Catholic” church predates the NT. BTW, you weren’t specific about that were you? The Hebrew scriptures are much older than the NT.
Sante,
He didnt say the Catholic Church was older than the OT… he said the Bible… the Bible was not codified until centuries after Christ’s death. He is correct in what he is saying. There were many canons of scripture floating around…even of the OT, the Council of Jamnia (Jewish) addressed this in approx. 90AD. There was no “OLD TESTAMENT” per se until the Church codified scripture in the 4th century.
 
Neither were you there…and very likely neither were the 12 “apostles” who have left no hard evidence of their actual existence.

Also, you are seriously misinformed if you think that the “Catholic” church predates the NT. BTW, you weren’t specific about that were you? The Hebrew scriptures are much older than the NT.

The earliest letters in the NT are from Paul, the true founder of Christianity. PAUL the ‘true founder?’ Since when? At least the ones we know are legit and not forgeries in Paul’s name. Funny how Paul knows little to nothing about the life of “Jesus”. Yet, he wrote about Jesus first. The “gospels” according to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John came several generations wrong after the supposed life of the Jesus character.JESUS CHARACTER? So, you aren’t a Catholic in your understanding of the faith, right? I guess we could call you A Pauling. Ask yourself this question. Why are the gospels named after these “apostles” when we know today they are anonymous works? They aren’t anonymous works, that’s why… Was someone trying to fool someone into believing? It sure seems that way. You’re assuming, and you KNOW what happens to people to Assume, right? It was the Roman church branch of Christianity which finally won out over the various competing sects of Christianity. The winners do write the history books. Have you ever thought of this possibility? Oh please. Sure, the old "conspiracy of the Romans’ and all that. Have YOU ever considered the possibility that maybe the people screaming all this twaddle are the ones mistaken? The ‘losers’ tend to try to rewrite history (they call it ‘revision’) and they don’t necessarily go for ‘truth’. . .

I was raised a Catholic, but due to a habit of thinking for myself, so you think that Catholics normally do NOT think for themselves? If not, why did you phrase it that way? Do you think that we don’t see through the bias? I eventually saw through the religious propaganda. I still consider myself a cultural Catholic, just like the other 75% of Catholics who never go to church. Ah yes, another 'this is a real statistic because I say it is ‘statistic’. The only difference is that I know why I don’t go to church anymore.
Because you have lost your faith and prefer to go with the one that pleases your sense of ‘intellectual superiority’, even though your new faith is not true. I’m sorry for you. I’ll pray that you return to the true faith.
 
Gee where do I start?

Yes, Paul was the true founder of Christianity. His writings compose 7 books out of the NT. 6 others were written in his name. His theology is dominant and was the first to be written. Other than “John of Patmos Greece”, the other books including the Gospels are completely anonymous works. Ever wonder why the NT says the “Gospel according to Mark”? Not by, but according? I know you don’t believe me so why don’t you look it up. My own St. Jerome study bible admits the anonymous nature of the gospels. The fact that you do not know this is quite revealing.

If you compare the qualities of Jesus to other son of God hero figures beforehand, you wll find striking similarities. Reference St. Justin Martyr in his first apology for an admittance of these facts. Jesus was very likely just a Jewish version of these myths. Any wonder why orthodox Jews rejected Jesus? They knew the story very well and rejected it wholesale.
Why is there nothing in contemporary history about “Jesus”. Nothing. Not one line written. Isn’t that odd? I wonder why?

" the old “conspiracy of the Romans’ and all that.” What does that mean?
The Roman branch of Christianity won the battle for orthodoxy. There were many competing sects. You know, I’m not making this stuff up. The Roman Emperor chose Roman Christianity for his own political reasons and the rest is history. Once the Roman sect of Christianity was given special privileges, the competing sects were eventually forced to concede and the conversions came in multitudes. The Christians were cruelest to their own kind.

Catholics and other Christians are told to be like little children and just accept what they are told. Sound familiar? Yes, too many religious people have very weak critical thinkiing skills. You yourself are proof of this. You didn’t even know that the Catholic Church admits the anonymous nature of the gospels! For sure, you have to find it out for yourself as you will never hear your pastor tell you this in a homily!

I “lost” my faith for one very good reason. No evidence and no reason to believe in any religion. I’m not going to a “hell” and neither are you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top