Replies

The whole Petros/ petras argument has been pretty well debunked. Jesus spoke Aramaic, regardless of what language Matthew wrote in. There is no gender distinction in Aramaic, like there was in Greek. Jesus would have said "Kepha" to descibe the stone upon which his church was built. When Matthew went to write his gospel in Greek he would have had to change the feminine word "petras" to the masculine word "petros" in order to correctly refer to Peter. Peter is identified as Cephas in later epistles by Paul. If the whole "petra" means large stone and "petros" means small stone is rejected then there is no disctintion between the "stones" to which Jesus was referring.

It seems that the play on words existed in Aramaic since Jesus was saying that Peter was nownamed "Rock" and upon this "Rock" he is building his church.

The context was that Peter correctly identified who Jesus was. Jesus therefore expounds for several lines as to the role Peter will now play because of his understanding of Jesus' real identity. It was Jesus who turned the focus to Peter.

Further, why was Peter given the "Keys of the Kingdom," a responsibility not given to any other apostle? The other apostles were later given the power to bind and loose.None of the other apostles recieved the keys.Peter was set apart from the others.

As to Peter's status as a sinner. We are all Sinners. The Church was to be protected from error by the Holy Spirit working through Peter and the other Apostles. The fact that Paul later rebukes Peter just shows that even an apostle could stray from God's path. The Pope is only infallible when he speaks on issues of faith and morals. Having spoken on the infallible tenets of the Catholic faith, doesn't mean that the Pope may not later sin on those same issues. It seems that under your interpretation Jesus founded his Church on himself and then departed, leaving the understanding of his Church to the individual believer. No wonder there are thousands of different denominatins all with their own interpretation of the BIble.

Jesus spoke Aramaic

We have absolutely no evidence of what language Jesus spoke, only evidence of what language the Bible was written in, and I have yet to find a definite source declaring that Matthew was written in Aramaic. I don't doubt it, but I have been trying to find an Aramaic/English Interlinear online and cant. If you know of one, please ping me. But the reference of Jesus speaking aramaic at His crucifixion does NOT PROVE that Aramaic was the natural language of Jesus. Jesus, being the KING OF THE JEWS, the Promised Messiah to the Jews, would have spoken Hebrew.

I personally believe Jesus spoke Hebrew. Hebrew is the language of the Jews, their formal language and also their common language, regardless of how common Aramaic was in that time period.

Neither did Jesus rename Peter, he clearly called Peter a stone. To believe otherwise means you believe Jesus changed the subject of His being the Messiah. Jesus entire passage was n the Church, His founding of it being the Messiah, and the fact that HIS church would have no end.

It had NOTHING to do with a sinful man being any sort of a foundation. The only foundation for the Church was Jesus Christ Himself.

Luke 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like:
48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

Jesus clearly says HE is the rock that the man built his house upon, not Peter.

What did Paul say about building upon a MAN'S foundational work?

(Rom 15:20 KJV) Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:

Paul said he would NOT go anywhere another man had alreayd preached. Since we KNOW Peter was in Rome after Paul, and they may have met there, Peter surely would have known this verse and this course of action and would NOT have built upon Paul's work in Rome.

(1 Cor 3:10 KJV) According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Paul makes it clear: The FOUNDATION of the Church is JESUS CHRIST, not Peter.

(Eph 2:20 KJV) And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

In that last passage, ALL the Apostles are called foundations, NOT JUST PETER, and it is CLEAR:: Jesus Christ is the Chief Cornerstone, NOT PETER, and ALL the Apostles are given the same rank and status, and PETER is NOT NAMED ONCE.

(Gal 2:7 KJV) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

(Gal 2:8 KJV) (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

(Gal 2:9 KJV) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

And Again, Paul clearly states PAUL is the Apostle to the Uncircumcision, and also noteworthy, in Gal 2:9, Look again what PAUL said::

(Gal 2:9 KJV) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Paul called 3 men, 3 Apostles the pillars of the Church, 3 men, not just Peter!!

Like I said before: Doctrine needs to be based on the Bible and what it says. People who read the Bible and interpret the Bible in light of their doctrine are in error. The Bible should tell you what your doctrine is, instead of your doctrine telling you what the Bible clearly says.

There are just too many ways to Biblically defeat the doctrine of Peter's supremacy in the Church. He WAS an Apostle, and that is greater than I ever will be, but as far as the FOUNDER or LEADER ALONE of the Church, someone who is considered the foundation of the Christian Church in Europe or something, that is just not Biblical.