Peter and the Papacy

Catholic Answers ^

[rwa265]

And history proves that Simon Peter Magus went to Rome and started a church...A very large church...

---

We weren’t talking history. CynicalBear told me that If I thought Simon Magus was converted I had better read more scripture. Do you know where else he is mentioned in Scripture?

[Iscool]

Mary bore Jesus Christ -- who is and was 100% man and 100% God, both natures utterly intertwined, not separate. She bore this man-god. She bore her creator.

This statement clearly proves a number of things...

You don't understand the Trinity...
This teaching makes a goddess out of Mary...
This teaching makes a demi-god out of Jesus...
This teaching is false doctrine...
This teaching makes a liar out of the God of the scriptures...
Any one teaching this is not qualified to discuss the scriptures...And that's just the short list...

[Iscool]

As I said before, check out respected Protestant Bible scholars like D. A. Carson in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]. They agree that by the time of the New Testament, there wasn't any difference in referent between petra and petros.

So what??? That doesn't mean there's any truth to it...

The Bible doesn't need to be corrected, but your grammar and lexicon need to be corrected.

I'm not too worried about grammar...Nitpickers usually have issues of their own...

Lexicon??? Which Lexicon do you think is the right one??? How many Lexicons disagree with Petros and Petra???

You're not helping your argument by repeating stuff that demonstrates ignorance of Koine Greek. There was a major shift of semantic fields between the Attic and the Koine, and between Koine and Modern Greek.

I'm not the least bit concerned about Koine Greek or your philosophers...I read the bible...

The Koine Greek issue has been settled for years...You can reinvent the wheel if you want to but the scriptures and Lexicons are clear that Peter is Petros and Jesus is Petra...

[metmom]

The heresy of Nestorianism that has resurfaced within modern protestantism is actually a serious understanding of Christ’s true nature. This complete misunderstanding of the hypostatic union led to the same errors that occur today among those who think wrongly that Catholics make the Blessed Mother into a goddess.

Correcting error in teaching who Jesus is is best done by proper teaching from Scripture, which would have solved the whole problem, instead of opening the door into more and more serious error by presuming to correct the work of the Holy Spirit.

Naming Mary "mother of God" does NOTHING to address anything about Jesus.

One big reason that it fails is that unless it is explained to someone, there is no reason for anyone to equate the term *mother of God* with Jesus. It is not self-evidence that saying *mother of God* automatically clears up error about the nature of Jesus.

[Mrs. Don-o]

However popular the petros/petra argument is with polemicists (who copy it from each others' websites), actual New Testament experts like Donald Carson (Research professor, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) don't buy the petros/petra distinction. So I'll go with the Reformed Evangelical guy on this one.

The clincher for me is that historically, people who had thorough vernacular AND scholarly knowledge of Greek --- AND a major gripe against Papal claims--- STILL never used this inane petra/petros argument in centuries of no-holds-bared polemics.

I mean, wouldn't it have occurred to the Greek Orthodox over the period of, say, the last 1000 years, that that would be a nifty way to minimize the impact of that awful "Thou Art Peter and Upon This Rock" Scripture?

But they didn't.

Yet I'm expected to accept that some English-speaking Brit or American of the mid-19th or 20th century (which is when this argument originated) knew more than ALL the Greek-speakers of the past millennium?

Really, that's asking a lot.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Cronos, I meant to ping you to this one:

#685

[rwa265]

Awright, sistah, now what, I say, now what’s the big idea going around confusing us with the facts?

Now, hold on, girl! That’s a joke, sistah. :-)

[CynicalBear]

It’s word games Cronos. Taking one verse and twisting it to make up a false religion without support from the rest of scripture will not end well for Catholics. God said there was no other Rock and that wasn’t Peter.

[CynicalBear]

You can argue and conjecture all day long but it doesn’t change the fact that God said there was no other Rock.

[CynicalBear]

1 Corinthians 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ.

[CynicalBear]

First of all it was Philip’s preaching and who baptised Simon the Magician not Peter. And Peter clearly recognized that Simon the Magician had NOT been converted but only wanted the power.

[CynicalBear]

God said He knew of no other Rock and I’m thinking He knew what He was talking about.

[Mrs. Don-o]

God said "You are Rock and upon this Rock I will build my Church," and I think He knew what He was talking about.

Look, what's the point of this? He said both things. We understand that He is the Rock, and He also calls Simon bar-Jonah "Rock" and calls us the "living stones" with which He builds His church, and if you go to your concordance you will find a lot of different Rock and Stone items applied to different people, in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, which you can look up as well as I can.

Peter gets called Petros, Kephas and Cephas. The term "Rock" is not applied to God exclusively, because HE Himself applies the metaphor to others. Are we going to have to fight about every word in the Concordance?

Surely not. It's sufficient to know that God is our Rock and our Salvation, and that Peter is also "Rock" because God says so, and we are building stones as well because God says so (though some of us could just as well be called "Sandy" and some of us Claude --- "Clod," get it?)

That's the way these words work, Fred Flintstone!

[rwa265]

First of all it was Philip’s preaching and who baptised Simon the Magician not Peter. And Peter clearly recognized that Simon the Magician had NOT been converted but only wanted the power.

---

You are correct. Philip baptized Simon in the name of Jesus. Simon was not included when Peter and John placed their hands on the people and they received the Holy Spirit. So when Simon saw what happened, he offered the apostles money. Peter rebuked Simon and encouraged him to repent and pray to the Lord. Then Simon asked Peter to pray to the Lord for him. But Scripture is silent on whether Simon actually received the Holy Spirit; so we do not know enough from Scripture for me to say that Peter converted Simon the Magician. I retract that statement.

[Iscool]

I mean, wouldn't it have occurred to the Greek Orthodox over the period of, say, the last 1000 years, that that would be a nifty way to minimize the impact of that awful "Thou Art Peter and Upon This Rock" Scripture?

The early church fathers knew Peter wasn't the 'rock' that Jesus built his church on...They mostly agree that it was Peter's confession that was the rock (Petra)...I believe THAT rock was Jesus himself...

All the Greek lexicons have Petros in them at Mat. 16:18...All the manuscripts have Petros...The Orthodox religion knows it is Petros and Petra there...

You and your 'higher education' critics can chase all the rabbits you want...You go right ahead and try to prove God's inspired, preserved word to be wrong...Me, I'll stick with the scriptures...

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

IF THIS VERSE IN EPH.,
IS TRUE,

And you continue to insist that every Greek lexicon and manuscript out there is wrong in Mat. 16:18,

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

You can't leave the verse to stand...You have to change the verse to:

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon these rocks I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And good luck with that...

[Cronos]

Iscool: You don't understand the Trinity... This teaching makes a goddess out of Mary.

Really, Iscool -- you really want to state that belief in the Trinity is wrong?

[Cronos]

Rn, metmom -- both of you are mothers. I have a lot of respect for mothers, but you did not "create" your children, you "bore" them, you carried them for 9 months and birthed them, but you did not give them their soles. Mother <> creator

Mary too "bore" God -- Jesus Christ. She birthed Jesus Christ -- GOD. She did not create Him or imbibe him no more than our mothers created us or gave us our souls.

[Cronos]

Rn Obviously she is not the mother of God.. but of the 2nd person in the trinity made man -- the 2nd person in the Trinity IS God. Jesus Christ IS/WAS/WILL BE God. He is 100% God and 100% man -- all 7 of us on this particular sub-discussion believe that, I hope.

I believe life starts at conception, the soul is at conception. Jesus was 100% man and 100% God from the very beginning -- there was never a time when He was just a man.

[Cronos]

verse 15 - He asks them.
verse 16 - Simon answers "You are..."
verse 17 - Jesus says "Simon you are blessed. Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my father in heaven"
verse 18 - Jesus says "you are rock and on this rock, I will build My Church'
verse 19 - Jesus says "I will give you the keys of heaven...
verse 20 - Then He charged his disciples that..

In Latin this is clearly in verse 15 he asks them (vos), in verse 17 he uses second person singular (es), the same in verse 18 (tu es ) and verse 19 (tibi ). But in verse 20 he uses plural third person (ut)

Going by the grammar, in verses 15 and 20 these are addressed to plural second or third persons (vos and ut respectively) while in 17, 18 and 19 this is 2nd person - tu es and tibi

15 - Who do you'all :) say I am
17 - you (singular) are blessed
18 - I say to you (sing) that you (sing) are rock
19 - I will give unto thee (sing)
20 - He commanded them (plural)

Though, good catch on dative for "commanded THEM" :)

[Cronos]

Stonehouse brings out a very good point. Nestorius’s local Bishop, Cyril Of Alexandria, wrote to Pope St. Celestine to clear it up. St. Celestine immediately condemned Nestorius’s error and so now we are back on track that it is the successor of Peter who has the final say when doctrines are disputed. This does not preclude discussion and disagreement among Bishops during the processes of sorting things out. It does mean that there is a final arbiter to be consulted, Peter and those who succeeded him in the apostolic succession.

This is a clear case of primus inter pares, which is not the "supremacy" of Peter over the others, rather as the first among equals, the elder brother that other bishops would refer to