Posted on 01/31/2008 5:45:17 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Ping for later reading.
ping!
Peter and Paul were the Apostles who graced the Church of Rome, were martyred and buried there and thereby gave that Church a prestige enjoyed by no other. As to the role of Peter among the apostles, it was like Paul, that of a missionary, not an administrator. No questioning his prominent place among them, as can be seen in the Gospels and in Acts. It was he was, after all, was assigned the role of proclaiming the New Covenant to the assemple people of Israel on the day of Pentecost, when 3,000 were added in one day to the Church. It is he who is the central ":character" in the first part of Acts, until Paul is "spotlighted." The very way that Luke has him exit the" stage" has led to the suggestion that Luke intended to write more about him, so that if the good doctor has picked up his pen again, we might have learned more about Peter just as we might have learned more about Paul.
There is no doubt that by the middle of the 2nd century that a "bishop" of Rome existed, an offical whose authority was based on his connection with the "tradition" of Peter and Paul. Nor much doubt that it was his association with Peter that removed all suspicious of Paul, whose doctrines were sometimes appropriated by heretics. Irenaeus in fact gives us the "lineage" of the "popes" of Rome, although --it may be--that the authority of the Church of Rome was at least originally informal and even collective. Protestant hostility to the veneration of relics predisposes them to dismiss out of hand the devotion that early on drew pilgrims to Rome to pray at the tombs of the apostles. But it happened. The centrality of Rome in the Empire was paralleled by the centrality of Rome in the place. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 made this almost inevitable, even though the churches in the East always far exceeded number those in the West. The strong monarchical authority of the papacy was an historical accident, or an act of providence. The spiritual authority upon which it based was owing to Peter. whose authority was of divine origin.
Simply put, Jesus never called Peter “Petros,” or “Petra.” He called him Cephas, a name which Paul also calls him. Biblical Greek, including throughout the Old Testament Greek, always uses “Petra” for rock; when he translated “Cephas” into Greek, however, Matthew chose “Petros,” the male form of the word.
“Petros” is not a diminuitive of “Petra,” and occurs as such in no Christian writing. The word used for a smaller rock or a hewn rock is “Lithos.”
Jesus said, “Simon, you are Cephas, and apon Cephas I will build my church.”
I guess Strong’s concordance is worthless? In Matthew 16:18, “thou art petros (G4074) and upon this petra (G4073) I will build my church”.
What about all the other scripture Oppenhiemer listed showing that Christ is the chief corner stone, etc. upon which the church is built? If the church was built on Peter, why did he not act like a pope and why did Christ not proclaim His church as the church of Peter?
For example:
The use of the two different words `Petros' and 'Petra' evidently proves there is a difference in meaning.
What it proves is that the writer or translator of the Greek text knows better than to give a man a proper name with feminine gender. To make petra into a man's proper name, you have to switch it to a masculine declension, so it becomes "Petros". Jesus could not have named Simon "Petra" if he'd wanted to, so the argument that there's some significance in him not naming him "Petra" is completely moot.
"Petros" is not used to mean "little rock" or "pebble" in Koine. The only examples of that usage are from classical Greek poetry, written centuries before Matthew.
This is the position of Herman Ridderbos, Oscar Cullman, D.A. Carson, and many other Protestant scholars, BTW. I am not making it up. It is not a Catholic fairy tale.
The Holy Spirit chose the Greek language to accurately write God's truth. The argument of the Aramaic language is moot, since the apostles chose to write it in Greek and the original Greek is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
That's irrelevant, because the author's argument from the Greek is false.
However, even if it were relevant, the proposition that Matthew was originally written in Greek is not universally accepted or self-evident. Eusebius quotes Papias saying that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Jerusalem, in "Hebrew". Now "Hebrew" might be Hebrew, or it might the language of the Hebrews, which was at that time Aramaic. But whatever Papias meant by "Hebrew," he certainly didn't mean Greek.
And the proposition that Peter was never called "rock" by anyone else is also false, because "Cephas" either is the Greek transliteration of Aramaic "Kepha" ("rock"), or it's a derivative of the Greek kephalon ("head") which, from your perspective, is even worse.
We don't call ourselves the "church of Peter" to this day, Manfred. We don't call ourselves the "church of Benedict," either.
You will, however, find the phrase "the church of Christ" used frequently in Catholic documents. Not referring to the Protestant denominations which go by that name, either.
Peter was never in Rome.....and in fact, was told to stay out of there! [Matthew 10:5-6] These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Like the article said.....that's why The Lord chose Paul.
Well, Ignatius of Antioch died in AD 110. He personally knew both Peter and Paul, and knew at least Polycarp of Smyrna, who was a disciple of John, if he didn't also know John personally.
Ignatius refers to the Romans being "commanded" by Peter and Paul in his Epistle to them. If anyone would know, he would.
Then there is the archaeological evidence surrounding Peter's tomb underneath the high altar of the basilica. It's clearly a site that was venerated by Christians going back well before Constantine. It's kind of hard to spin graffiti reading Petros eni ("Peter is within").
The usual argument is that Peter went to "Babylon". Ask an Iraqi Christian -- Catholic or Orthodox or Nestorian -- who founded the Church in Iraq. They won't say "Peter". If he had been there, the Christian community in that part of the world (most of which has not been under Roman rule for centuries) would be extremely proud of it.
I notice many RCC watch dogs are on patrol with no apparent interest in learning if the RCC position might be incorrect; instead publishing reams of RCC propaganda. Pity. One thing I’ve noticed in reading the RCC propaganda - it’s man centered. Poor God. If Mary or Peter hadn’t been up to the challenge, what would He have done?
If you scroll down a ways (quite a ways), you'll find one of the more interesting bits of evidence: on a tomb, in the Vatican necropolis near (what is believed to be) St. Peter's tomb, is the inscription:
Peter, pray for the holy Christian men buried near your body
The tomb dates no later than AD 192.
You got here late, it has already been covered. We’ll let you know if you happen upon a new twist or false argument against Catholicism that we haven’t heard before or been able to defend.
Your tagline is a winner.
What is that multi-page attack you posted on our beliefs, except "reams of fundamentalist propaganda"?
Thank you, it isn’t original but it sure is appropriate for the FR religion forum.
Yes, in this regard, it’s flat -out wrong.
>> If the church was built on Peter, why did he not act like a pope and why did Christ not proclaim His church as the church of Peter? <<
Did Pope Benedict declare it the church of Benedict? And how would you call “act like a pope?” Didn’t he single-handedly brush aside kosher law? Isn’t he quoted more than three times as much as all other disciples put together? Read Luke. Once Jesus chooses him as the Rock, no other disciple (except Judas) talks to Jesus, except through him or in conjunction with him. They even ask questions THROUGH him. And which disciple was told by the Good Shepherd, “Shepherd my sheep?”
There were three special apostles, Peter, James and John. John was entrusted with the care of Jesus’ mother, Mary; James would be head of the local church in Jerusalem, the birthplace of Christianity. And Peter would be head of the universal church in Rome.
Oh, and I forgot this one: The bible calls Peter, “primus,” EVERY time the disciples are listed (four times). That could mean first in importance, or first in time. But we KNOW for a FACT Peter was not the first in time.
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.