Posted on 06/07/2006 8:12:05 PM PDT by Petrosius
Whatever...
A lot of man-made traditions have grown up within the Catholic church over the last 2000 years, and much of them have questionable validity, and much of them obscure the simplicity of the gospel of salvation through faith in Christ.
"You are SO mistaken...We see what you see...But we want no part of it..."
__________________________________
Amen. I'll stick with the SCRIPTURES.
Have you been baptised into the Church of Peter?
1Cr 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them [which are of the house] of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
1Cr 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
1Cr 1:13 Is Christ divided? wasPaul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
1Cr 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
1Cr 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
On the Petros/Petra difference. Yes, you were taught a fairly common exegesis of that passage which attempts to distinguish between the meanings of petros and petra. I am by no means a Greek expert, but I do not think that distinction applied in Greek of the first century, though it *may* have earlier in Attic Greek. I will look it up in my Liddell-Scott lexicon when I get home, and I'm pinging jrny whose Greek is better than mine.
But even if that were so, that distinction does not seem to be what Christ was intending here. You mention the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew. We have evidence from the 2nd century that states that Matthew wrote in Aramaic (or Hebrew), but obviously that kind of statement is not infallible. What is infallible, however, is the Bible itself, which repeatedly calls Peter Cephas--the Aramaic form. Furthermore, John 1:42 shows which was the original form when it says "Cephas which, translated, is Peter." If Christ originally used Greek, what the Bible would have said was the reverse.
There is an easy explanation, moreover, why there are two different forms of "petr-" here. Matthew wanted to imitate the Aramaic in Greek: so he wanted to play on the word "Rock". However, in doing so, he was constrained to change the gender of feminine "petra" to make it fit a man: "Petros".
This is the explanation that best fits the available evidence and does not twist an interpretation out of the text which is not there.
But that is directly opposed to what Matt 16 says. Christ gives his authority most directly to Peter. There is no one else in the NT to whom such sweeping authority is given (i.e. the keys of the kingdom of heaven). What's throwing you is that you are looking for the word "pope" and not finding it, so you conclude that there was no pope
The word is irrelevant. Call him a ham sandwich if you like. But the *office* is what is important and it was the office of Peter that we are talking about which is the office of Pope. One cannot be separated from the other.
There is One Church made up of all believers in the Divinity of the One Jesus Christ....the rest of it is just man-made doctrine, (even the division).
Fine me a reputable Greek scholar who puts stock in that distinction and we'll talk.
But in any case, Greek was not the language Christ used to confer this name. John 1:42 states explicitly that "Petros" was a translation to Greek from the Aramaic Cephas. Cephas was the original, according to the infallible word of God.
Oh, and BTW I should ask which Catholic Church should I become a "member" of? The Roman one or the Orthodox one?
That's a new one....the OT isn't authoritative? Last I checked it was just as much God's Word as the New Testament is.
I assume that this would also apply to your opinions and those of the Reformers who rent the Church asunder?
As long as you are asking ... ;) In either case you will find that outside the question of the papacy we are in substantial agreement in opposition to the Protestants.
I'll have to look into my Lexicon as well, which defines varying forms of Greek from Homeric to Attic to New Testament time periods.
"so he wanted to play on the word "Rock". However, in doing so, he was constrained to change the gender of feminine "petra" to make it fit a man: "Petros".?"
I agree. And besides, the etymology of the word means that Peter means the same thing as rock, the difference in gender being a grammatical necessity.
Read my other posts.
...Yessir I do, at least all those parts that are not Biblical. I believe in the what the Bible says - period.
I kindly thank God for his Word - and the way he used the early Popes and others to preserve it for us. :-)
Ah, but there's the rub...which one has the authority of Peter?
I believe it's the same passage that mandates Wednesday night Bible studies, altar calls, and TV ministries.
Seriously though, that's the question I believe we are discussing here.
Of course I would hold that your reading of the Petrine passages, as well as all the inventions of the Reformers, are not Biblical.
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.