Who was the Rock in Matthew 16:18?

[Randy_Carson]

Also, Simon means Peter.

Well, both names refer to the same person for sure.

“Peter” comes from the Greek word “petros” which means “rock”. However, Jesus spoke Aramaic, and the Aramaic word for “rock” is “kepha”.

Thus, Jesus nicknamed Simon “Kepha” which is written as “Cephas” in the NT. When Cephas is transliterated into Greek, it becomes “Petros” or “Peter” in English.

 

[Masters_Servant]

Yes.

Hmmm…I don’t know if this is an accurate portrayal of the Church’s focus. However, in an apologetics forum, one can expect communion with Rome and the Pope to come up somewhat frequently.

That is a good point; my neighbors and other Catholics I have met never speak about their faith; at least to me.

Here’s my question: if you were Timothy, how would you feel about being circumcised BY PAUL knowing that Paul said, “If you let yourself be circumcised, Christ is of no value to you”?

I would pray, say ouch, then ouch, then okay Paul I trust you. Paul was going to the synagogues almost always the first place he went before hitting the gentiles, so I believe this was the point he was making and actually trying to protect his life because he was half Greek and his mother was Jewish; that is the context.

C’mon…Paul acted prudently in this matter just as Peter had acted prudently when confronted by the Judaizers sent by James.

There shouldn’t be a double-standard.

I did not write the Bible; it clearly states Peter was rebuked to his face by Paul. Jesus even called him Satan.

 

[Masters_Servant]

Well, both names refer to the same person for sure.

“Peter” comes from the Greek word “petros” which means “rock”. However, Jesus spoke Aramaic, and the Aramaic word for “rock” is “kepha”.

Thus, Jesus nicknamed Simon “Kepha” which is written as “Cephas” in the NT. When Cephas is transliterated into Greek, it becomes “Petros” or “Peter” in English.

Jesus invented all languages; He is God. He read the scroll in the temple in Hebrew. On the day of Pentecost their were many languages spoken by the Apostles. I agree that the vernacular in the region was Aramaic and the Romans were primarily Latin, but their were many gentile Greeks who spoke Greek as well, so I would say they spoke all of them depending as to whom they were speaking. I would imagine that there were a fair number of people that were bilingual, much like today. No one can be dogmatic unless they were there and based on the dead sea findings, Hebrew and Aramaic were common among the Essenes. One day we will know or we won’t care. Actually the Aramaic is “Keepa”. I was just reading a small portion the Aramaic translation of the NT a short while ago. I found it online and is interesting because you read it right to left, but individual words or phrases within the sentence will read left to right. So you are reading from right to left across a line, but in between you are reading left to right; took a few minutes to get the hang of it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

it clearly states Peter was rebuked to his face by Paul.

Okay. What does that suggest to you?

 

[Reuben_J]

I don’t see the problem with Peter and the rest of the Apostles laying the foundation upon the rock bed or after the cornerstone is laid, which is Christ Jesus. That foundation being laid is the Gospel of Christ and it had to begin somewhere and in God’s sovereignty decided to use 12 Apostles to lay the foundation of the Gospel, which is where the power of God is manifested by the manifestation of Jesus as Lord and Savior of the sinner; to the Jew first, then to the gentile.

Jesus needed the visible church too. He never denied that it would be abolished after he was gone.

You have it partially right. Even though twelve were chosen, one (Peter) was handpicked to be the rock upon which this church would be built and given the key. You would know the consequence when there is a free for all without a single authority where the ultimate call is made in matter of faith and in moral.

God is the one who ordains, which is why we have so many failures attempting to preach and teach the Word of God regardless of their Christian affiliation. Men appoint, even some of who Paul appointed were false teachers because it is from God. I would take a faithful person concerning the things of God that never went to seminary nor had hands laid on them, than an apostate that has gone through all the formalities of men. Wouldn’t you?

Though this is good in theory, it does not happen in reality. Otherwise there will be thousand of self appointed popes.

Those who are ordained have specific ministerial functions chiefly like administering the Sacraments or ordaining priests. However, it does not stop anybody, ordained or not, to be teachers or preaching the word of God or just be workers of/for the church.

I had to edit to also say that the formalities are not to be thrown to the wind, for it is taught in god’s word, but the actual ordained are of God’s calling regardless of the formalities. if a person is truly called by God to be a preacher-teacher, then he will do the formalities just as many who are not called will do the formalities.

Yes and no. You interpret the word ‘ordain’ through Protestant’s understanding while in Catholicism it has specific connotation that entails specific authority to be bestowed upon them.

I have no argument as I have shown from the post which you are partially responding to, If it makes you happy to argue, then have at it. I am here to understand Catholicism from the people who claim to practice it. Also, Simon means Peter.

Simon does not mean Peter. That has been explained here. Maybe you have to look it up again with your pastor. I am sure he will not err in this.

God bless.

 

[YADA]

I did not write the Bible; it clearly states Peter was rebuked to his face by Paul. Jesus even called him Satan.

Yes, but not everything is written and then you have to look at what was written and ask why ?

Peter was given a vision regarding dietary rules …
Peter eats with christian gentiles [which jews would not normally do - as they were unclean] until christian jews come to town …
then Peter decides not to share table fellowship with them …

PLEASE NOTE: no where in the scriptures does it say that Peter told anyone that it was improper for jewish christians to eat with gentile christians …
Peter did not teach in any way contrary to what was already decided … unlike the judaizers …

Now as the Head of the Church - the entire Church - jewish and gentile - Peter’s actions set a bad example

For which Paul rebuked Peter and then publically boasted of that fact [and one could ask why Paul felt that his public rebuke was so note worthy - I have my opinion regarding that - it was note worthy precisely due to Peter’s unique role and Paul’s sense that others did not always take him seriously enough - the apostle born out of time, accused of theft etc]

Now take Paul, He directly teaches that those who submit themselves to circumcision actually seperate themselves from Christ [now even the Christain jews may have desired to keep this long held practice of circumcision- not necessarily for religious reasons - but that old human nature that says - *we’ve always done it this way] … but Pauls distinctly teaches against it …

Now pride always goeth before the fall - you have heard that said I am sure …
so Paul - who rebuked Peter for removing himself [silently - quietly - without comment] from table fellowship - and who taught against circumcision - compels another to submit to circumcision in direct opposition to what Paul himself had taught … does the word hypocracy come to mind? …

Do you ever wonder if Paul was thankful that Peter had only to day that Paul’s letters were sometimes hard to understand and that Peter never felt the need to boast of confronting and correcting Paul? …

Because - if that was not a humbling experience for Paul - what would have been … Afterall who would you rather have been the gentile who missed sharing a meal with Peter or Timothy who missed … well you get the idea …

One of the wonderous mysteries about the faith is the “Scriptures” that came to us, these men could have written glowing accounts of the events of thier experiences and the early organizational struggles - how noble they were - how wonderfully easy it al was after the ressurection … but we don’t get that … we get the struggles, the accounts of fear, hiding here, faltering there, being accused of this or that, the petty fights and dis-agreements …the wonder at the delayed return of Jesus and the adjustment that followed that delay … and here we are still waiting and figuring it all out 2000 years later …

 

[schaick]

Same thing slick. The Bishop of Rome is the Pope.

The term and authority of a Pope did not come until a later date:

www1.church-of-god.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=18200

*Irenaeus’s late-second-century writings about Peter plainly had this function in view. This becomes evident from a second reference in Against All Heresies: “Since . . . it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority” (emphasis added).

What is interesting about Irenaeus’s statement is that he does not claim Peter’s primacy as the first pope, nor that any future bishop of Rome would be Peter’s successor. The bishops of Rome, in Irenaeus’s view, had originally been appointed by Peter and Paul to be overseers, not to fill their own role as apostles. His reference to two apostles to provide the foundation was also useful in countering the claims of Gnostic groups, who tended to center on one apostle or individual as the focal point of their revelation.

The claim of Peter living in Rome, however briefly, and being martyred there is thus a second-century creation designed to address the political needs of the Roman church. The legend came to be accepted as an unquestioned statement of faith by the time of Eusebius in the fourth century and by all church historians thereafter.*

 

[Randy_Carson]

The term and authority of a Pope did not come until a later date:

www1.church-of-god.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=18200

Irenaeus’s late-second-century writings about Peter plainly had this function in view. This becomes evident from a second reference in Against All Heresies: “Since . . . it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority” (emphasis added).

What is interesting about Irenaeus’s statement is that he does not claim Peter’s primacy as the first pope, nor that any future bishop of Rome would be Peter’s successor. The bishops of Rome, in Irenaeus’s view, had originally been appointed by Peter and Paul to be overseers, not to fill their own role as apostles. His reference to two apostles to provide the foundation was also useful in countering the claims of Gnostic groups, who tended to center on one apostle or individual as the focal point of their revelation.

The claim of Peter living in Rome, however briefly, and being martyred there is thus a second-century creation designed to address the political needs of the Roman church. The legend came to be accepted as an unquestioned statement of faith by the time of Eusebius in the fourth century and by all church historians thereafter.

Rubbish.

Peter in Rome Proved from Scripture

In Acts 12, we read the following:

Acts 12:1-3
1It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. 2He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. 3When he saw that this pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also.

Herod had just killed James, and it was almost certain that he would have killed Peter, also. Peter’s death must have been imminent, because God intervened by sending an angel to help Peter escape. Naturally, Herod would not have been pleased to learn of Peter’s escape, and Peter was in greater peril than ever. Consequently, he fled the region. This is evident from the following:

Acts 12:17
17Peter motioned with his hand for them to be quiet and described how the Lord had brought him out of prison. “Tell James and the brothers about this,” he said, and then he left for another place.

What is this other place? Rome. We learn from Peter’s own hand that he was in Rome in the following passage:

1 Peter 5:13 (Knox)
The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark.

Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.” Rome is also referred to as “Babylon” repeatedly in the Book of Revelation.

It should be obvious that since Peter’s life was in danger due to Herod’s desire to arrest and kill him, neither Peter nor Paul would have specified Peter’s exact whereabouts in any written communications that could have been confiscated from any courier by Roman soldiers. This explains the use of the word "Babylon’ and the silence about Peter’s location in the rest of the book of Acts.

From all of this, we can be confident that Peter was in Rome beginning around AD 42-45 and that he built up the church in that city which began when the first believers returned from Jerusalem after the day of Pentecost recorded in Acts 2. In AD 49, Claudius expelled all Christians from Rome, and Peter returned briefly to Jerusalem in time for the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). Peter probably slipped in and out of Rome for the next few years before being martyred there around AD 67.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The term and authority of a Pope did not come until a later date:

www1.church-of-god.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=18200

*Irenaeus’s late-second-century writings about Peter plainly had this function in view. *

It’s a pity these folks don’t know about Ignatius and Dionysius. Ignatius was a disciple of Peter and succeeded him as Bishop of Antioch. And, by the way, Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John. These are significant connections in the days before Facebook**.**

Early Church Fathers – Peter in Rome

Ignatius of Antioch

“Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict” (Letter to the Romans 4:3 A.D. 110]).

Dionysius of Corinth

“You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time” (*Letter to Pope Soter *[A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).

Irenaeus

“Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church” (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189]).

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops qf the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid. 3:3:2).

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anencletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded. . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us” (ibid. 3:3:3 [inter AD. 180-190]).

 

[Randy_Carson]

The term and authority of a Pope did not come until a later date:

www1.church-of-god.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=18200

Irenaeus’s late-second-century writings about Peter plainly had this function in view. This becomes evident from a second reference in Against All Heresies: “Since . . . it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority” (emphasis added).

What is interesting about Irenaeus’s statement is that he does not claim Peter’s primacy as the first pope, nor that any future bishop of Rome would be Peter’s successor. The bishops of Rome, in Irenaeus’s view, had originally been appointed by Peter and Paul to be overseers, not to fill their own role as apostles. His reference to two apostles to provide the foundation was also useful in countering the claims of Gnostic groups, who tended to center on one apostle or individual as the focal point of their revelation.

The claim of Peter living in Rome, however briefly, and being martyred there is thus a second-century creation designed to address the political needs of the Roman church. The legend came to be accepted as an unquestioned statement of faith by the time of Eusebius in the fourth century and by all church historians thereafter.

Just who is it that is making these erroneous claims?

THE CHURCH OF GOD, AN INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
The Church of God, an International Community, a nondenominational organization based in Pasadena, California, traces its roots to Sabbatarian believers in 17th-century Europe, and before that to the first-century Christian church at Jerusalem. Accordingly the Church endeavors to uphold the original practice and teachings of Jesus Christ and His followers. The Church of God has members around the world and offices in Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, the Philippines, South Africa, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States.
www1.church-of-god.org/visionmedia/page.aspx?id=115#COG

This church traces its origins to a group of believers in the 17th century who held that Saturday is the proper day of worship. From there, they pass over 1,500 years in silence in order to connect themselves to the Church in Jerusalem. Wouldn’t you love to see that explained in more detail? Hmmm…it’s probably better not to ask such questions.

World Headquarters shown here:

 

[Randy_Carson]

It’s a pity these folks don’t know about Ignatius and Dionysius. Ignatius was a disciple of Peter and succeeded him as Bishop of Antioch. And, by the way, Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John. These are significant connections in the days before Facebook**.**

Early Church Fathers – Peter in Rome

Ignatius of Antioch

“Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict” (Letter to the Romans 4:3 A.D. 110]).

Dionysius of Corinth

“You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time” (*Letter to Pope Soter *[A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).

Irenaeus of Lyons

“Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church” (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189]).

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops qf the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid. 3:3:2).

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anencletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded. . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us” (ibid. 3:3:3 [inter AD. 180-190]).

 

[Randy_Carson]

It’s a pity these folks don’t know about Ignatius of Antioch and Dionysius of Corinth. Ignatius was a disciple of Peter and succeeded him as Bishop of Antioch. He was also a contemporary and friend of Polycarp of Smyrna. Polycarp was a disciple of John, and it was Polycarp who discipled Irenaeus. Of course, both Peter and Paul (as well as Clement of Rome) all had interaction with the Church at Corinth. These are significant interconnections in the days before Facebook**.**

Do these early witnesses place Peter in Rome? Read on for the exciting answer!

Early Church Fathers – Peter in Rome

Ignatius of Antioch

“Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict” (Letter to the Romans 4:3 A.D. 110]).

Dionysius of Corinth

“You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time” (*Letter to Pope Soter *[A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).

Irenaeus

“Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church” (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189]).

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops qf the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid. 3:3:2).

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anencletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded. . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us” (ibid. 3:3:3 [inter AD. 180-190]).

 

[rovimax]

Would you kindly answer the question(s) I asked in the previous post? That’s all I’m asking. My Pastor teaches exclusively from the Bible.

What I replied on your post is part of what I learnd from the Catholic Church’s Cathechism. I have no right to teach otherwise. I am just sharing. If you will read the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, you will understand the Faith and you will not assume or presume what we believe so that you will not misrepresent us. If you misrepresent our belief then you will be a liar.

The CCC is based on the Bible and the Church’s Sacred Tradition. Catholics believe that the word of God is transmitted either by mouth or letters 2Thes 2:15. That’s why its never Sola Scriptura for Catholics but, ‘‘The Word of God Alone.’’

 

[onenow1]

I have no argument as I have shown from the post which you are partially responding to, If it makes you happy to argue, then have at it. I am here to understand Catholicism from the people who claim to practice it. Also, Simon means Peter.

I wish you God’s very best.

First thanks for your prayer !

Originally Posted by Masters Servant
I believe it is a poor argument and somewhat troubled by the picking and choosing of when to apply Aramaic over the Greek on an inconsistent basis, which only demonstrates one’s attempt to show something they want to be there, which you do not need to do. You perception and understanding is your reality, just not mine, but I am not here to understand or learn mine, but the Catholics, which I am making slow progress mainly because of you so far. Again I thank you for your help.

Your above quote tells quite a differen’t story M S.

God Bless

 

[Dokimas]

Rubbish.

Acts 12:17
17Peter motioned with his hand for them to be quiet and described how the Lord had brought him out of prison. “Tell James and the brothers about this,” he said, and then he left for another place.

What is this other place? Rome. We learn from Peter’s own hand that he was in Rome in the following passage:

Actually the context tells us where Peter went:
Act 12:
18 Then, as soon as it was day, there was no small stir among the soldiers about what had become of Peter.
19 But when Herod had searched for him and not found him, he examined the guards and commanded that they should be put to death. And he went down from Judea to Caesarea, and stayed there.​

 

[Masters_Servant]

Okay. What does that suggest to you?

Peters intentions were not of God and needed correcting. He was double speaking, but Peter for all his faults had many strengths and I cannot wait to meet him and the Apostles Paul, both are people i respect a great deal in the NT.

 

[Masters_Servant]

You have it partially right. Even though twelve were chosen, one (Peter) was handpicked to be the rock upon which this church would be built and given the key. You would know the consequence when there is a free for all without a single authority where the ultimate call is made in matter of faith and in moral.

Yes I understand this part of Catholic doctrine according to those who have posted, but I have not seen a Catholic reference, an outside link approved by your church that I recall. If you would like to share one or two, then I would be very grateful.

Though this is good in theory, it does not happen in reality. Otherwise there will be thousand of self appointed popes.

Those who are ordained have specific ministerial functions chiefly like administering the Sacraments or ordaining priests. However, it does not stop anybody, ordained or not, to be teachers or preaching the word of God or just be workers of/for the church.

Yes and no. You interpret the word ‘ordain’ through Protestant’s understanding while in Catholicism it has specific connotation that entails specific authority to be bestowed upon them.

I was generally speaking and whether Catholic or non-Catholic, one was chosen by God to preach and teach or they were not. They may continue to play the role, but it still gets back to God. Concerning the bolded statement in maroon above you made I have a brief comment. This could be one reason why there is warning that not many should be teachers and not to be too hasty to lay hands on people otherwise their sin can be accounted to those that laid hands in haste. I believe this is in 1 Timothy 5.

Simon does not mean Peter. That has been explained here. Maybe you have to look it up again with your pastor. I am sure he will not err in this.

God bless.

What does Simon mean then? Also worth noting is that Peter is the surname given to Simon (Mark 3:16), this is why you will see Jesus often call Him Simon, Simon Peter, Peter, Simon Simon and Cephas. Again; this is not an argument over who is right or wrong, but just desire to understand the Catholic teaching. Paul refer to Peter as Cephas more than all other combined, which I though was interesting, but I don’t infer anything into it - just noting.

On the link, click on Simon and another window will pop up with the meaning, then click Peter and the same will happen so you can see for yourself.

 

[Javl]

Originally Posted by ** Masters Servant**
I have no argument as I have shown from the post which you are partially responding to, If it makes you happy to argue, then have at it. I am here to understand Catholicism from the people who claim to practice it. Also, Simon means Peter.

I wish you God’s very best.

There are also many books in publication that explain what the Catholic Church teaches and what ALL Catholics believe. Of course there are the “Cafeteria Catholics”, who pick and chose what they wish to believe. These, in truth, are not considered Catholic. For a comprehesive knowledge and understanding of the Catholic Church, I would recommend that you purchase a copy of " The Catechism of the Catholic Church".

Also, Simon ( Simeon ) does not mean Peter. Simon is an Aramaic name that means “(God) has heard” in Aramaic, and “hearing” in Hebrew. Peter, the Romanized version of the Greek Petros, means “rock”. If stone is meant, then it would be “lithos”

Simon is also called Simon Bar-Jonah, which means Simon, son of Jonah. ( a surname ).
This would be the same as calling him Simon Johanson in today’s language. I hope this clears it up for you. Meanwhile, God Bless.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Masters_Servant]

Yes, but not everything is written and then you have to look at what was written and ask why ?

Peter was given a vision regarding dietary rules …
Peter eats with christian gentiles [which jews would not normally do - as they were unclean] until christian jews come to town …
then Peter decides not to share table fellowship with them …

PLEASE NOTE: no where in the scriptures does it say that Peter told anyone that it was improper for jewish christians to eat with gentile christians …
Peter did not teach in any way contrary to what was already decided … unlike the judaizers …

Now as the Head of the Church - the entire Church - jewish and gentile - Peter’s actions set a bad example

For which Paul rebuked Peter and then publically boasted of that fact [and one could ask why Paul felt that his public rebuke was so note worthy - I have my opinion regarding that - it was note worthy precisely due to Peter’s unique role and Paul’s sense that others did not always take him seriously enough - the apostle born out of time, accused of theft etc]

Now take Paul, He directly teaches that those who submit themselves to circumcision actually seperate themselves from Christ [now even the Christain jews may have desired to keep this long held practice of circumcision- not necessarily for religious reasons - but that old human nature that says - *we’ve always done it this way

] … but Pauls distinctly teaches against it …

Now pride always goeth before the fall - you have heard that said I am sure …
so Paul - who rebuked Peter for removing himself [silently - quietly - without comment] from table fellowship - and who taught against circumcision - compels another to submit to circumcision in direct opposition to what Paul himself had taught … does the word hypocracy come to mind? …

Do you ever wonder if Paul was thankful that Peter had only to day that Paul’s letters were sometimes hard to understand and that Peter never felt the need to boast of confronting and correcting Paul? …

Because - if that was not a humbling experience for Paul - what would have been … Afterall who would you rather have been the gentile who missed sharing a meal with Peter or Timothy who missed … well you get the idea …

One of the wonderous mysteries about the faith is the “Scriptures” that came to us, these men could have written glowing accounts of the events of their experiences and the early organizational struggles - how noble they were - how wonderfully easy it al was after the ressurection … but we don’t get that … we get the struggles, the accounts of fear, hiding here, faltering there, being accused of this or that, the petty fights and dis-agreements …the wonder at the delayed return of Jesus and the adjustment that followed that delay … and here we are still waiting and figuring it all out 2000 years later …

I understand that Catholics have referred to Paul as a hypocrite. I believe it is more of a lack of understanding the context that Paul was instructing Timothy and for his own safety because Timothy’s father was a Greek, which the Jews despised and his mother was a Jew; therefore in order to train Timothy and keep him safe they made a vowel, circumcised and did the purification rites. Why? Every time Paul went to a new town he would first begin in the synagogues before heading to the gentiles and I believe Paul’s
point that Timothy would be of no use to Christ if he were dead. I am not dogmatic about it, but it seems more reasonable than hypocrite to me, but I see at least a couple of posters view as Paul being a hypocrite, so I will see if other Catholics agree as I go.

Thanks for the post.

 

[Masters_Servant]

What I replied on your post is part of what I learnd from the Catholic Church’s Cathechism. I have no right to teach otherwise. I am just sharing. If you will read the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, you will understand the Faith and you will not assume or presume what we believe so that you will not misrepresent us. **If you misrepresent our belief then you will be a liar. **

The CCC is based on the Bible and the Church’s Sacred Tradition. Catholics believe that the word of God is transmitted either by mouth or letters 2Thes 2:15. That’s why its never Sola Scriptura for Catholics but, ‘‘The Word of God Alone.’’

Nice talking with you and I pray God might bless you today.