The Primacy of Peter

Where Is That In The Bible | Patrick Madrid

[Titanites]

Proving none of them actually read the Bible, for I explained it clearly.

Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary, Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary, New Testament Professor, Professor of New Testament, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies. Keep telling yourself they don't read the Bible and you might start to believe it.

That's another standard rebuttal I've encountered with your type: if anyone doesn't agree with your interpretation of Scripture, then "they don't read the Bible". It can't ever be that there is just a disagreement on interpretation - it has to be that they don't read the Bible.

Right out of the play book. It's old, but standard, and a technique with which your assistant pastor is familiar, I'm sure.

[RaceBannon]

No, it is an honest statement of liberal Protestantism, they just dont believe what ti says anymore.

For centuries before these men lived, they would have agreed with me, not you.

that is evidence enough

Besides, if what it says in Greek is that Peter is a STONE, and since you all claim to enforce the idea that the RCC is who gave us the Bible, then to keep repeating that Peter is just a stone being a mistranslation must be an error of the Catholic Church, no?

For if the Aramaic Peter means ROCK, then the Greek, which is the accepted RCC version, regardless of which Greek text you think of, says Peter is a STONE, not a ROCK, is it a bad translation?

THAT means that either the RCC endorsed a bad translation of the Greek Peter being STONE,

or

Peter is just not the ROCK.

Either way, I explained it quite well, and your logic doesn't measure up.

You guys have tried to play the word game trying the Aramaic Peter means ROCK, but ignore that the Greek Text says STONE for Peter, which means you either have a bad translation or Peter IS a stone, and not the ROCK.

Either way, the context is what matters.

NO WHERE is ROCK assigned as to a man.

Only to God.

You guys keep trying, but not one of you has actually addressed the Biblical issue and the context of the passage being that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.

And THAT is the Rock Jesus spoke of, not a sinful man who Jesus called SATAN several verses later.

So, if Peter IS the Rock, then PETER must be a Satanic rock, for it is even clearer language that Jesus called Peter SATAN immediately after calling him a rock ( according to RCC doctrine )

hint: The ROCK of the Church cannot be Satan, and you cannot deny Jesus called Peter SATAN. No matter how much you try to tell me what Jesus really meant in Aramaic.

[AnAmericanMother]

< roll eyes >

One of the advantages of the Catholic Church is that it does have adult leadership . . .

[Titanites]

Besides, if what it says in Greek is that Peter is a STONE, and since you all claim to enforce the idea that the RCC is who gave us the Bible, then to keep repeating that Peter is just a stone being a mistranslation must be an error of the Catholic Church, no?

No. The Greek doesn't say Peter is a stone.

For if the Aramaic Peter means ROCK, then the Greek, which is the accepted RCC version, regardless of which Greek text you think of, says Peter is a STONE, not a ROCK, is it a bad translation?

Petra/petros is rock, in Greek. In the Koine Greek there is no distinction between petra and petros. See Thayer's Lexicon of the New Testament.

Lithos (Strong's 3037) is stone in Greek and you can see the usage of lithos/stone in 1 Peter 2. Simon Barjona is called Petros, not Lithos, in Matthew 16:18. The word Lithos would have been used if Simon Barjona was to be designated a small stone as opposed to rock. Although you want to ignore the Aramaic, the same goes for John 1:42. Jesus calls Simon the son of Jona, Cephas (rock), and not Evna (small stone).

You seem to be stuck on the thought that if Peter is called Rock by Jesus, then he must be God because Rock refers only to God. Nobody thinks Peter is God because of his new name. As someone already noted, in Isaiah 51, God calls Abraham the rock from which Israel is hewn (and Abraham is even called "your father", but that's a topic for another discussion). So there are two very signficant instances in Scripture where rock is used to designate someone other than God.

Peter is "in Christ", a new creation of God, and being called Rock does not detract from God. Like Abraham, Peter has a special role to play.

I know that no amount of discussion will change your mind because it is cast in petros, but laying all the cards on the table will help others to understand the point.

[Titanites]

not one of you has actually addressed the Biblical issue and the context of the passage being that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.

There is no need to address it. We agree that this is a context of Matthew 16:13-19.

Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
and
thou art Peter

[AnAmericanMother]

Here's another thought: the wonderful old city (and former Nabataean capital) of Petra is carved completely out of the solid . . . wait for it . . . ROCK.

Now THAT is a particularly large rock.

[Iscool]

With this kind of information readily available in scripture,it is truly bewildering that so many non-Catholics and self identified catholics on both ends of the spectrum will argue against the Church's position on Peter and his Primacy.

Normally, it would be bewildering...And if what the Catholic Church says was true, there'd be no reason for non-Catholics to exist, I suppose...But look at the last part of this piece...

His primacy was recognized by St. Paul (who in Antioch “withstood Peter to his face” over the vexing issue of his refraining to eat with Gentiles) when he describes in Galatians 1:18 how he went to see Peter to make sure his teaching was in line with Peter’s.

You're led to believe the Bible is being quoted here, however, Paul did not recognize Peter for any sort of Primacy...

And the rest of this statement is pure fabrication by your Church...Thee are some facts in the Bible that totally contradict this statement...Let's look...

Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

Yes, Paul did go see Peter...That's the only accurate statement in this whole mess...

Gal 2:7 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 (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 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.

How much more clear can it get??? Peter no doubt was a great Apostle, and he did minister thru the 'transition' of the church from Old Testament Jews to the beginning of the church...But when Paul showed up, Jesus directed Peter to minister to the Jews, not the Gentiles...That job was given to Paul...What primacy Peter may have had was gone...

Now here's a shocker for you:

Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
Gal 2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

So did you get that??? Peter was not walking 'uprightly' according to the TRUTH of the gospel...

So look at this again from the article:
when he describes in Galatians 1:18 how he went to see Peter to make sure his teaching was in line with Peter’s.

Not only is this statement completely untrue, the truth is, Paul went to Peter to read him the riot act...Peter was screwing up and Paul had to straighten him out...Paul definatley did not go to see Peter to get himself straightened out...

So to answer your question; when the Bible says one thing and YOUR church says another, we chose to go with the Bible...And when we see a church that appears to use deception to convince it's followers, we get as far away as we can...

[tenn2005]

The Catholic Church is today the most vigorous church in the world (and the largest, with a billion members: one sixth of the human race)

Sounds to me to be exactly what Jesus was talking about in Mat. 6:13-14. Is the Catholic Church the "wide gate?"

[tenn2005]

...has been affirmed from the beginning by the same Church that gave you the very bible with which you have the unmitigated effrontery to use as a tool to discredit the authority of the Church.

Sorry to disappoint you friend, but the Catholic Church did not give us the Bible. The Bible was given to us by God. It was pinned by His chosen writers and inspired by the Holy Spirit. All the Catholic church did was to compile the scriptures the church established by Jesus had been using for hundreds of years.

So please give credit where it is due; to God, not to the Catholic Church which is an apostacy from the original church of the first century.

[AnalogReigns]

Good stuff! I think it's also significant that the native speakers of Greek, the Eastern churches, have never accepted the Latin church's interpretation of this Greek verse.

Well done, interpreting scripture with scripture.

[Coleus]

Pope Fiction - EWTN

[Coleus]

The Papacy in Scripture – No Rocks Required