The Jesus Movie Gibson Should Make

Jewish leaders continue to decry Mel Gibson’s forthcoming Jesus movie for supposedly threatening to whip up anti-Semitism. Due out next April, "The Passion" identifies Jewish priests as instigators of the crucifixion. Maimonides, too, in his Mishnah Torah, affirms Jewish involvement in Jesus’ execution — which must make the greatest of medieval Jewish sages an anti-Semite, too.

But the film I’d like to see produced that would really make some Jews nervous, while teaching a healthy lesson: an honest depiction not of Jesus’ death, but of his preaching. The Christian Bible makes clear what was probably the main theme of his sermons. It is a theme that many liberal rabbis, to their discomfort, would feel obliged to endorse.

Today’s secular historians generally assert that Jesus was a loyal adherent of Pharisaic (rabbinic) Judaism. They argue against the conventional Christian understanding that Jesus radically critiqued Judaism. On this, the Christians are right.

True, Jesus is repeatedly quoted in the gospels as embracing Torah observance (e.g., Matthew 5:17-18). He must have accepted certain broadly defined mitzvot like the Sabbath and Temple sacrifice, because his followers were still practicing these commandments just after his death.

What Jesus rejected was the oral Torah that explains the written Torah. Essential to rabbinic Judaism, this notion of an oral Torah recognizes the Pentateuch as a cryptic document, a coded text. It posits that the Bible’s first five books were revealed to Moses along with a key to unlock the code — for a lock is never made without a key.

This oral tradition was passed from Moses to the prophets to the rabbis, later to be written down in the Mishnah and Talmud. At least that’s the theory presented in the first chapter of the Mishnah’s tractate Pirke Avot, a theory that still animates traditional Judaism.

On point after point, Jesus derides not the written Torah but its orally transmitted interpretations. He does so on matters like the details of Sabbath observance (no carrying objects in a public space, no harvesting produce or use of healing salves except to save a life), donating a yearly half shekel to the Temple, refraining from bathing and anointing on fast days like Yom Kippur, hand washing before eating bread and praying with a quorum.

Stated this way, laundry-list fashion, such commandments from the oral tradition might seem like trivialities, as they did to Jesus. But from the constellation of such discrete teachings there emerges the gorgeous pointillist masterpiece of Torah — not merely "the Torah," the finite text of the Pentateuch that the Christian founder accepted, but the infinite tradition of Judaism as a whole, reflecting God’s mind as applied to human affairs.

For Jesus, oral Torah was a manmade accretion without transcendent authority. He tells a group of Pharisees, "So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God," citing Isaiah. "In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men" (Matthew 15:7-9).

Elsewhere, "Woe to you lawyers also! For you load men with burdens hard to bear" (Luke 12:46).

From this position, it was a logical next step to that of the apostle Paul, who abrogated the Torah altogether, oral and written. Abandon the former and you’ll soon abandon the latter.

A phenomenally charismatic person, Jesus mocked the Jewish establishment of his day and was adulated by a following from Galilee, the region where he conducted his brief ministry, famous in this period (as professor Geza Vermes shows) for the ignorance of the local populace. Knowing no better, loathing Pharisees as their own teacher did, they thought Jesus uniquely had Judaism all figured out.

Sound familiar? Reform ideology has always viewed oral tradition as being pretty much nothing more than the "precepts of men," while the Conservative movement increasingly understands it as a human creation, "hard to bear." Having grown up in a Los Angeles-area Reform community, I can testify that most Reform and Conservative temples impart a level of lay education that is approximately Galilean. As radio commentator Michael Medved has memorably said, the majority of Jews in our country know little about Judaism other than that it rejects Jesus.

Yet when it comes to the oral Torah, most American Jews follow Jesus without know it.

Mr. Gibson, please consider making another movie, a prequel about his career before the crucifixion showing how much Christianity we have unwittingly absorbed.

Torah indeed necessitates rejecting Christianity, but that means rejecting also the Christian view on the most fundamental of concepts in all Judaism: oral Torah. A Jesus movie about his life as a preacher would be a good dose of reality, if unpopular with our beloved Jewish leaders — not, come to think of it, unlike the film that Gibson will give us next year.

David Klinghoffer’s new book is “The Discovery of God: Abraham and the Birth of Monotheism” (Doubleday, 2003).

You cannot cite a non-existant Aramaic translation in any legitimate discussion of the subject. Catholicism runs afoul of the same problem on the issue of Jesus' brothers and sisters. Yes, the Aramaic can be used for cousins or other close relatives, but the Greek manuscripts that we actually have make a distinction, and they definitely say "brothers" and "sisters."

Thank you -- you are quite correct. I can't tell you how many times I've seen the "Aramaic has the same word for cousin and brother argument." It's like a parrot saying "Polly want a cracker." In their defense though, it's quite possible that Matthew was written in Aramaic but the others were most certainly written in Greek.

For Jesus to say that Peter is really the Rock on whom the Church rests would be a break with every other use of the symbol in Scripture--and Peter himself tells us that the Rock that is the cornerstone of the Church is Christ, not himself!

Again, well said. There was dispute about what Matthew 16 in the first several hundred years of the church but the two main contenders were that (1) Jesus was speaking of himself as the rock; or (2) Jesus was speaking of Peter's faith, and hence the faith of believers, as the rock. It was a long time before the modern Catholic interpretation popped up.

We don't have Jesus' words recorded for us in Aramaic. What we do have is Matthew's Greek Gospel, which makes a distinct difference. Perhaps our Lord said, "You are little Cephas, and on this cephas (as He points to Himself) I will build My church . . ." and Matthew used the different Greek words to indicate the difference. We can't know why Matthew made a distinction, but he did, and if we accept that the Holy Spirit had a hand in our Bibles, then we have to accept that that distinction is important.

Then please show me a source from before the Reformation that says that Jesus called Peter "a little pebble". Even the Orthodox believe that Peter was the Rock.

Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter here. The changing of a name in Scripture(ie, Abram to Abraham, Saul to Paul) is a momentous event, and always means that the person who has had their name changed has also had a change in their status and in their standing. So Jesus changed Simon's name to "little Pebble")(completely foreign to any commentary on Matthew by the early Church), it essentially meant nothing, and we had to wait until roughly the 19th or 20th century to find this out? Because, unless I'm mistaken, even the early Reformers didn't use this as one of their arguments against the Papacy.

living stones, are being built up a spiritual house . . . Therefore, it is also contained in the Scripture, "Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious, and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame." Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, "The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone," and "A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense."

Yes, the chief cornerstone is Christ. Christ is the rock. And yet he used that very word, "Rock", to confer authority on a human being, his chief Apostle. That has to have a profound meaning; it's not the triviality that modern day Fundamentalism makes it.

A second problem: We don't have Jesus' words recorded for us in Aramaic. What we do have is Matthew's Greek Gospel, which makes a distinct difference. Perhaps our Lord said, "You are little Cephas, and on this cephas (as He points to Himself) I will build My church . . ." and Matthew used the different Greek words to indicate the difference. We can't know why Matthew made a distinction, but he did, and if we accept that the Holy Spirit had a hand in our Bibles, then we have to accept that that distinction is important.

The Holy Spirit has a hand on the original autographs, not on translations. The Patristic evidence is that Matthew's gospel was written in Aramaic; the historical evidence is that Jesus of Nazareth, a first century Jew, used Aramaic to speak to his fellow Jews. If what you're contending is correct, we can't accept the Septuagint Bible as accurate because it isn't in the original Hebrew, even though many of the prophecies about Our Lord(the virgin conceiving, the piercing of Jesus' hands and feet) are not to be found in Hebrew editions of the Scriptures.

The Church is not a place, it is a spiritual body of the redeemed, with Christ--not Peter and not Peter's supposed successors--as its only head.

Where did the Scriptures come from? Did a book fall from Heaven. The Church was the entity that decided what was canonical. For instance, some early Christians rejected James and the Apocalypse; others thought that Clement of Rome's letters and the Didache were canonical. It was the Institutional Organization of the Church that decided which books were canonical at the 2nd Council of Carthage in the fifth century.

Jesus is the Head of the Church; the Catholic Church teaches this. His Prime Minister of the New Covenant is the Bishop of Rome, just as the High Priest was the prime minister of the Old Covenant people of God. Historians(even Protestant ones!) contend that Jesus calling Simon "Kepha" or "Peter" was a wordplay on the name of the High Priest-Caiphas, whose name derives from the same Aramiac noun as "Cephas". Jesus was saying that the new High Priest was Peter-the Old Covenant was at an end, and the new one was to have a different head.

Sorry for rambling, but there are tons of good books to read on this subject, including some by Protestant scholars. I don't have the titles or authors handy, but I'll post them later.

Really? I had all sorts of aspersions made on my character by stating the same fact! LOL! Surely it must be a problem with your software package because today's Catholic church asserts that Mary's perpetual virginity has always been believed, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. Maybe you need the special Magisterium 4.0 upgrade.

No one cast aspersions on your character. But just because some software doesn't return 10,000 quotes of "Mary Ever-Virgin" doesn't mean it isn't there. Now if you put "Mary Ever-Virgin" in a search, you won't get this:

Origen "The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Or this:

Hilary of Poitiers "If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

Or this:

Epiphanius of Salamis "And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).

Or this:

Ambrose of Milan "Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son" (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).

Or this:

Cyril of Alexandria "[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing" (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).

But I'd say they express the idea of "Mary Ever-Virgin" rather nicely, even if a search engine of the words "Ever Virgin" might not turn them up.

I couldn't find his quote from Athanasius either but didn't press the point.

Go to any library or bookstore that sells books on the Fathers. This quote is authentic.

Here's what a Catholic site has to say about the Protoevangelium of James:

24. James, Protoevangelium of, the earliest of the apocryphal infancy gospels, the chief source of several other similar infancy gospels, probably written in the mid-2d century. It is extant in many MSS, in Greek as well as in translations. Most of the work is taken up in retelling the birth of Mary, her being brought up in the Temple, her betrothal to Joseph (from whose rod a dove flew out and lit on his head), the annunciation of the birth of Jesus, Joseph's fears, the trip to Bethlehem, the birth of Jesus, the midwife's testimony to Mary's continuing virginity, the episode of the Wise Men, the escape of John the Baptist from Herod, the murder of Zacharias by of ficers of Herod. It is certainly not by the Apostle James. Discrepancies seem to point to more than one author, who show considerable ignorance of the geography of Palestine. The style is sober, restrained, even artistic.

I wouldn't exactly use that book as a source to buttress your arguments if I were you!

It was a long time before the modern Catholic interpretation popped up.

Yeah, it was ages:

Cyprian of Carthage "The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Pope St. Clement the First . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).

Ignatius of Antioch "Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

Tertullian "Peter, who is called the rock whereon the Church was to be built, and who obtained the keys of the kingfom of heaven" (De Pras., 22).

Ephraim [Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

Augustine: Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is "I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven," and other similar passages (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

Bhuddistic and nonthreatening

Bhuddistic & non-threatening??? Most Christians just sort of pretend he didn't mean what he said in the SOTM

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Mat 5:23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

Mat 5:24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

Mat 5:25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

Mat 5:26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Mat 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not [that] thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Mat 5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast [it] from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not [that] thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Mat 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Mat 5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

Mat 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

Mat 5:35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

Mat 5:36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

Mat 5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Mat 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have [thy] cloke also.

Mat 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

Mat 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Mat 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

Mat 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more [than others]? do not even the publicans so?

Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

I can provide citations against you that were earlier (Josephus, for one, who wrote toward the end of the first century

Josephus says James is the brother of Jesus. He doesn't say he was the Son of Mary. He also gives an extremely old age to James; according to Josephus, he would have been much older than Jesus at the same point if He would have continued in His earthly life. So that means one of three things:

1)James was the son of Joseph from a previous marriage, and is therefore unmistakably older than his "brother" Jesus the Christ;

2)James was a close relative of Jesus who was born before Jesus, which would also explain why James seems to be the head of the Nazarene's family;

3)James was really Mary's son, was born before Jesus, and the writers of the gospels falsified the facts in order to make Jesus seem unique and special.

Obviously, number three is false, so the answer must lie in one of the other two answers. There is absolutely not a shred of evidence from any source, secular or Christian, that James was born of Mary, the Mother of Christ.

Josephus says James is the brother of Jesus. He doesn't say he was the Son of Mary.

Logic dictates that he had to be, plus this fits with the scriptures and other early church documents. Even the uber-Catholic scholar Ludwig Ott pooh-poohs the odd notion that Jesus' brothers and sisters were really the children of Joseph from a previous marriage.

He also gives an extremely old age to James; according to Josephus, he would have been much older than Jesus at the same point if He would have continued in His earthly life.

Really? Here is what the entirety of what Josephus has to say about James:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned...

Where do you get the idea that James was so old that he could not be the brother of Jesus? Am I going to have to upgrade the whole internet to Magisterium 4.0?

Yeah, it was ages:

Cyprian of Carthage ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep ... (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

AD 251? Yeah, that's really early.

Pope St. Clement the First . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).

So how does that prove anything about the primacy of Peter? And you get on me for supposedly not using germane quotes? LOL!!!!
Ignatius of Antioch "Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

Again, how does that prove anything about the primacy of Peter?
Tertullian "Peter, who is called the rock whereon the Church was to be built, and who obtained the keys of the kingfom of heaven" (De Pras., 22).

Tertullian didn't even begin writing until almost the year 200. That's not exactly early!

Ephraim [Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. ... (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

Ooo, AD 351!

Augustine: Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is "I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven," and other similar passages (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

Wow! AD 415. Yep, that's awful early!.

plus this fits with the scriptures and other early church documents

What other early Church documents, pray tell? Please show me an early document that says that "Mary is the Mother of James and the other brothers". We're arguing in circles here. The main belief of the early Church was that Mary had no other children than Jesus; whether they were Jesus' stepbrothers or other close relatives, they weren't considered the children of Mary.

Even the uber-Catholic scholar Ludwig Ott pooh-poohs the odd notion that Jesus' brothers and sisters were really the children of Joseph from a previous marriage.

Well the "uber-Catholic" Ott was holding on to Western tradition, which is that James was Jesus' cousin or close relative. But the fact is that the early testimony all agrees: THEY WEREN'T THE CHILDREN OF MARY. And with all due respect to Ott, he wasn't as close to the events as the Fathers were. I don't know if they were Jesus' stepbrothers or not, but one thing I do know: they weren't Mary's children. If they were, you would find dozens and dozens of quotes saying they were. We do know, however, there are dozens and dozens of quotes saying Mary remained a virgin, and that Luther and Calvin themselves agreed with, because it was clearly what the early Church believed.

Then please show me a source from before the Reformation that says that Jesus called Peter "a little pebble". Even the Orthodox believe that Peter was the Rock.

I am. The original Greek. From Strong's:

Petros: Apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than lithos); as a name, Petrus, an apostle: - Peter, rock.

petra: Feminine of the same as petros; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): - rock.

I don't have to show any source other than the original Biblical text to make my point. Neither should you.

I agree (though in fact, Jesus had called Simon "Petros" when He first met him, John 1:42). However, you are overstating your conclusion. Peter had just made a profession of faith in Jesus that our Lord Himself said came from Heaven rather than from the disciple himself. It is "by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast" (Eph. 2:8-9).

Thus, when Peter made that statement, that Jesus was the Son of God, he was displaying the saving faith that comes from God, and thus became one of the "living stones [that] are being built up a spiritual house" with Christ Himself as the chief Cornerstone on which that house is built (1 Pet. 2:5-8 again).

Since Peter himself states that Christ is the cornerstone on which we, the little stones, build upon to make the spiritual house that is the Church, there should really be no argument about this.

But since you want a pre-Reformation source, here you go:

But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? . . .
And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname of "rock" who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved,(5) that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.
Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Book XII, chapter 11

Hmmm . . . it seems that even in the fourth century when Origen wrote, Peter's primacy was not a universally-held truism.

The Holy Spirit has a hand on the original autographs, not on translations.

Very true. However, even granting an Aramaic original that may or may not have existed at one time, all we have is the Greek, which is attested to in literally hundreds of ancient manuscripts. I refuse to accept an argument based on speculation of a non-existant Aramaic translation and what it might or might not have said over one based on the Greek manuscripts that we do have. And so should every critically-thinking human being.

You argue in a circle: You state that the Roman Church is the one true Church established by Christ. I ask for evidence. You point to Matthew 16. But wait, I say, Matthew 16 draws a distinction between Petros and Petra. But you say that the original Aramaic would've used the same word, without any modifiers that would explain the differenced in the Greek. Okay, I say, on what authority can you make such a statement? Why, on the authority of the one true Roman Catholic Church established by Christ in Matthew 16 . . .

Do you not see the gaping hole in that argument?

His Prime Minister of the New Covenant is the Bishop of Rome, just as the High Priest was the prime minister of the Old Covenant people of God.

Actually, Christ is the High Priest of the New Covenant (Heb. 7 and 8). The concept of the office of the Pope is wholly an invention of Roman Catholicism, and doesn't have any Biblical support. Given the corruption that has reigned in Rome for much of the last two millennia, I don't view Protestants as having left the Church so much as the Church having left Rome.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.