Scripture, Tradition, and Rome (Part 1)

http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/05/14/scripture-tradition-and-the-roman-catholic-church-part-1/ ^ | May 14th, 2007 | John MacArthur

[Petronski]

More importantly.....why were the Apostles....6 years after the crucifixion, so indignant and upset that Peter had been dealing with Gentiles [Acts 10:45][Acts 11:1-3] if The Lord had told them to do it?

Because they still (wrongly) believed circumcision (and other works of the law) was also required for salvation. You might recall †Paul writing extensively in the epistles about how works of the law are no longer necessary.

Acts 11 makes this quite clear.

[guitarplayer1953]

Pope Peter I?
Did Peter ever use this title in any of his writings?
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
Both of these are the greeting of Peter's letters he never calls himself a Pope. He always pointed lost sheep to the Shepard the Lord Jesus the Christ, never to himself.

[Petronski]

Did Peter ever use this title in any of his writings?

His name was changed to Peter (by Christ Himself) and He was the first pope named Peter. Hence: Pope Peter I.

By way of further illustration, since World War I was not known as such until during/after World War II, therefore we cannot call it World War I...at least by your logic.

[guitarplayer1953]

Peter never signed any letters as the Pope of Rome. Your example of ww1 and ww2 is not valid, David called himself the King he was not named the King after his death as King David the 1st.

Now James the brother of Jesus did use that name and stated so himself that he was the brother of Jesus one of a number of brothers and sister.

[Petronski]

Peter never signed any letters as the Pope of Rome.

Of course he didn't. He never was "Pope of Rome," whatever that means.

He was, however, Pope Peter I, First Vicar of Christ.

[Petronski]

Now James the brother of Jesus did use that name and stated so himself that he was the brother of Jesus one of a number of brothers and sister.

Accident of translation.

[guitarplayer1953]

He (PETER) Never signed any letters using that title of Pope or Vicar of Christ. He stated that he was an Apostle and only an Apostle and servant of Jesus.

[guitarplayer1953]

Do you not mean fact that goes against traditions?
If this is an accident how many more are there?
Maybe it is a accident of translation that says to some that Peter is #1.
In Gal 2:9 Paul names James first as should be since he is the brother of Jesus.

[Petronski]

Translation of the OT from the Hebrew to the Koine Greek noted that there is no Hebrew word for cousin, close relative, uncle, etc. Thus the word for brother (adelphos) was used.

The writers of the NT followed the pattern, using adelphos whenever the recollection from Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic was a reference to a cousin, close relative, uncle, etc. was meant.

Accident of translation.

[Petronski]

Gal 2:9 James, and Cephas, and John. No proof of any greater authority can be drawn from the placing or numbering of James first, which perhaps St. Paul might do, because of the great respect he knew the Jewish converts had for St. James, bishop of Jerusalem, where the ceremonies of the law of Moses were still observed. Several Greek copies have Peter, James, and John. So we also read in St. Jerome's Commentary, p. 240, and St. John Chrysostom in his Exposition, p. 729, has Cephas, John, and James. (Witham)

[guitarplayer1953]

We read in Scripture: “24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” (Mat 1:24-25 AV)

I suppose that this is an accident too concerning Joseph and Mary? knew her not until

[guitarplayer1953]

You use the same argument for Peter when he is mentioned first so what is it? Can't have it both ways.

[Petronski]

From Haydock’s Commentaries.

[Petronski]

You use the same argument...

Nope.

[guitarplayer1953]

So back to the first question when did Peter ever refer to himself or anyone else refer to Peter as the Vicar of Christ, the Bishop of Rome?

[Petronski]

Interesting that you should cite that word "until" in that passage.

The original does not mean "until" as we understand it in English. The original does not speak prospectively (in the way that we might say "they didn't celebrate until the game was over").

[Petronski]

So back to the first question when did Peter ever refer to himself or anyone else refer to Peter as the Vicar of Christ, the Bishop of Rome?

Back to the first ridiculous question, you mean?

What you assert is that the earth did not exist until we began calling it "earth," in other words: an absurd argument.

[guitarplayer1953]

No my assertion is that no one during Peters life nor Peter called him or himself the Vicar of Christ. Just as no one during Mary's life called her the co redeemer.

Although they called James, Joses, Simon, and Judas the brothers of Jesus.

[Petronski]

No my assertion is that no one during Peters life nor Peter called him or himself the Vicar of Christ. Just as no one during Mary's life called her the co redeemer. Although they called James, Joses, Simon, and Judas the brothers of Jesus.

Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.

[guitarplayer1953]

Lets me see if I am hearing what your saying:
The bible is irrelevant
but traditions are?