Posted on 05/01/2015 2:36:22 PM PDT by NYer
There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).
Peter the Rock
Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was that—aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2—in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.
Look at the scene
Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when "Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi" (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, "You are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).
The significance of the event must have been clear to the other apostles. As devout Jews they knew at once that the location was meant to emphasize the importance of what was being done. None complained of Simon being singled out for this honor; and in the rest of the New Testament he is called by his new name, while James and John remain just James and John, not Boanerges.
Promises to Peter
When he first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)’" (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).
Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.
Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).
Finally, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, "Do you love me?" (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me more than these?" (John 21:15), the word "these" referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives.
Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled.
Who is the rock?
Now take a closer look at the key verse: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18). Disputes about this passage have always been related to the meaning of the term "rock." To whom, or to what, does it refer? Since Simon’s new name of Peter itself means rock, the sentence could be rewritten as: "You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church." The play on words seems obvious, but commentators wishing to avoid what follows from this—namely the establishment of the papacy—have suggested that the word rock could not refer to Peter but must refer to his profession of faith or to Christ.
From the grammatical point of view, the phrase "this rock" must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God") is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.
As an analogy, consider this artificial sentence: "I have a car and a truck, and it is blue." Which is blue? The truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun "it." This is all the more clear if the reference to the car is two sentences earlier, as the reference to Peter’s profession is two sentences earlier than the term rock.
Another alternative
The previous argument also settles the question of whether the word refers to Christ himself, since he is mentioned within the profession of faith. The fact that he is elsewhere, by a different metaphor, called the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4-8) does not disprove that here Peter is the foundation. Christ is naturally the principal and, since he will be returning to heaven, the invisible foundation of the Church that he will establish; but Peter is named by him as the secondary and, because he and his successors will remain on earth, the visible foundation. Peter can be a foundation only because Christ is the cornerstone.
In fact, the New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5-6, Rev. 21:14). One cannot take a single metaphor from a single passage and use it to twist the plain meaning of other passages. Rather, one must respect and harmonize the different passages, for the Church can be described as having different foundations since the word foundation can be used in different senses.
Look at the Aramaic
Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while "rock" is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra?
Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, "You will be called Cephas"). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church."
When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.
Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of "small stone" and "large rock" in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).
Some of the effect of Christ’s play on words was lost when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church."
Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, "and the Rock was Christ" though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from "Rock . . . rock."
If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew’s Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.
The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy.
I don't have the airfare to Rome. But somebody certainly could (and should). The whole purpose of these Synod meetings is to get input and feedback from "the brethren".
As you must know from Catholic history, there are instances where laypeople, (e.g. Francis of Assisi), even women (e.g. Catherine of Siena) as well as clerics (Bonaventure and Dominic) have to offer the pope some frank feedback to get him back on the right track.
"Things such as such as US immigration policy, the US DoMA and so-called homosexual love? Certainly just a small sample."
On DoMA (Defense of Marriage act) and "so-called homosexual love,", Pope Francis is already very much on the record in line with Catholic teaching. Here's some links with clicking through. It'll only take you a couple of seconds:
Pope Francis criticizes gay marriage, backs ban on contraception
Pope Francis suggests gay marriage threatens traditional families
Pope, in Philippines, says same-sex marriage threatens family
Amid U.S. Gay Marriage Debate, Pope Affirms 'Traditional' Marriage Stance
Pope Francis Shocks Liberals on Same-Sex “Marriage”
As for U.S. Immigration Policy, my understanding is that he hasn't singled out the U.S. as such, but has talked more about the obligation of the whole community of nations. Here's a good quote to ponder:
What did Pope Francis actually say on the crisis on the U.S.-Mexican border?
"I would also like to draw attention to the tens of thousands of children who migrate alone, unaccompanied, to escape poverty and violence: This is a category of migrants from Central America and Mexico itself who cross the border with the United States under extreme conditions and in pursuit of a hope that in most cases turns out to be vain. They are increasing day by day."This humanitarian emergency requires, as a first urgent measure, these children be welcomed and protected. These measures, however, will not be sufficient, unless they are accompanied by
- policies that inform people about the dangers of such a journey and, above all, that
- promote development in their countries of origin.
- Finally, this challenge demands the attention of the entire international community so that new forms of legal and secure migration may be adopted."
So there you've got first, compassionate protection for children traveling alone; realizing that won't be enough unless you discourage them from taking this dangerous journey in the first place, promoting development in their home countries so they won't be driven to emigrate; and involving the international community so it doesn't all fall on the "front-line" states (like the USA in the Americas, or Italy in the Mediterranean.)
I think these are sensible remarks to the world's diplomatic community, ones which can be debated: certainly not dogma.
Anyone who confuses diplomacy and debate with dogma knows rather little about Catholicism.
"Might I inquire as to why the CoC has not done that very same thing?"
WMight I inquire as to who is this "CoC"? Council of Churches? Chamber of Commerce? College of Cardinals? Chain of Command?
Easy one: His Mom.
◦to Peter was sent an angel to proclaim Christ's rising from the dead (Mark 16:7),
Mark 16:7...."But go, tell His disciples and Peter....
So the angel told the women to go tell the disciples and Peter. Why was Peter singled out? Because he had denied Christ. Jesus wanted Peter to know He had indeed overcome.
◦Peter was the first one the risen Christ appeared to (Luke 24:34);
Matthew 28:1-10 refutes your claim that Jesus appeared first to Peter. It was to the women that He first appeared.
So should we infer anything from that??
Whenever the Apostles were listed, Peter's name was at the top of the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes, the other apostles aren't listed individually at all, but are referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32).
Bogus....Andrew was the first one called and he went and got Peter.
Should we now infer Andrew was prime?
and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41).
Not sure what you mean by "received" but there is nothing indicating these were Peter's converts. They were responding to his word, which was about following Christ.
Peter resided at the meeting that chose Matthias, first of the many successors of the Apostles(Acts 1:13-26)
Yet the astute reader will note that "they", meaning the group there, put forward two names and "they" drew lots to determine who was to be chosen. It also notes Matthias was numbered with the 11 apostles. All equal.
Easy one: His Mom.
Proof.
Why not Joseph?
You don't have anything...
Aren't they pitiful...
Dogmas are man made rules...They are meaningless...Peter willfully erred in doctrine...Paul set him straight...
Hoo boy! Since when was he the leader? Tell me about the vote on that. Show me in the Bible where it states the Apostles were not equal. One had greater powers than the others. Show me where it states that Peter alone was given the keys to Heaven.
They will say anything, even when it denies scripture...Scripture obviously is meaningless to them...
1Co 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
1Co 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
1Co 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
1Co 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
Most of them admit they can't even get the milk of the words to they rely on some self appointed religious nuts who tell these people THEY THEMSELVES have mastered the milk of the word...
They call Peter their first pope and Jesus/the scriptures tell them they are carnal for believing such nonsense...Does that matter to them??? Heck no...They just keep on marching; onward thru the fog...
1Co_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.
And every one of them tells you he/she is of Peter...
Why, thank you, Bipolar! This comes from evaluating the evidence, instead of just trying to explain it away.
" And Jesus Himself said "He who is first shall be last"."
And the last, first. And the the guys in the middle, di-si-do in place. :o)
If all the last (the children, for example) come first, I suppose ALL us grown-us will be more or less level at the very back of the line :o)
"I see nothing definitive about superiority over the other Apostles. Nothing. nada."
It depends on what you mean by "superiority". I don't imagine Peter was the smartest or most intellectual. He was not the most well-trained in Jewish and Greek knowledge (Paul apparently scoops him on that.) I don't know that fishermen are inherently higher-up than tax collectors.
All I know is that, according to Scripture, Peter is given, symbolically, "The Keys." The meaning of this is very well illustrated in Isaiah 22, where God says to Shebna, the unworthy "Master of the Palace," that He will cast him out from his office, and instead "summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah", giving him all the symbols of leadership:
"I will clothe him with your robe,
gird him with your sash,
confer on him your authority.
He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
and to the house of Judah.
I will place the key of the House of David
on his shoulder;
what he opens, no one will shut,
what he shuts, no one will open."
Clearly the significance of the "keys" is to make someone the Master of the Palace (who stands in for the King in his absence) and and to give him authority.
We don't know that Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, was an innately "superior" man, no more than Simon (Peter) son of Jonah was: we do know he was given a position by God.
"Does your faith require ... Mary to be sinless (even though that goes contrary to Scripture)?"
Here's your Scripture on Mary: Kecharitomene." Read it carefully. I rest my case.
By the way, It's not un-Scriptural. Not only do we have the Angelic Salutation, we also have the realization that in Biblical language,words like "all" and "none" and so forth, often don't mean to indicate exceptionless absolutes, but rather to indicate the general run of things.
For instance, Scripture says "No one has ever seen God," but it also says, "Moses and Aaron saw the God of Israel."
Scripture says "No man is just, not even one", yet it also calls Noah, Joseph of Nazareth, and even John the Baptist, "Just men."
Scripture says "All men have sinned," and also calls Mary "Kecharitomene" (full of grace, not full of sin!)
"Does your faith require the RCC to be the One True Church?"
Depends on what you mean. The conciliar document Lumen Gentium says that "the Church of Christ... subsists in the Catholic Church." It doesn't say "IS" in a total, mathematically-closed-set, exclusive sense.
This is because the Catholic Church also teaches that we [can], according to Catholic doctrine, affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them."
What are these "elements of sanctification and truth"? That's dealt with explicitly in the Catechism (para. 825): "The elements of sanctification found also outside the visible confines of the Church are: (1) the Bible, (2) the life of grace, (3) Faith, (4) hope, (5) charity, (6) other interior gifts of the Spirit, (7) and visible elements."
I think that this can contribute to a more accurate nderstanding.
Iscool, this kind of over-broad, globally-generalized insult is impertinent and tends to shut down the conversation. Be a little more discriminating, please.
The "Palace" we are talking about is the Kingdom of Heaven. I really don't think Peter is the master of the Kingdom of Heaven, do you? That would be a new title. What do you suppose these keys are, exactly? Did anybody else get these keys or just Peter? Why did He give Peter these keys to the Kingdom of heaven?
On the contrary, if Mary received grace, it was because she was a sinner.
Where sin abounds, grace does much more abound.
Where there is no sin, there is no grace because the person is getting what they deserve, not getting what they don't deserve. Grace is only operative when the person doesn't deserve what they are getting.
If Mary was graced, it was because she had sinned.
Jesus had two roles to play.
And Mary was the mother of the person that played both of those roles. Not the mother of the eternal Godhead, but the mother of God in the person of Jesus. This does not make Mary greater than God in any way, shape, or form. It just recognizes that God, while He was with us, was a human being in every way but sin. This includes being the son of a woman.
okay
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.
Are you, like your church leadership a purveyor of false information???
Peter spoke for the rest (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), This prominence is not the exception, but the rule.
Peter certainly liked to rush up to the microphone ahead of everyone else...That certainly doesn't mean he spoke for anyone other than himself...Those disciples followed Jesus, not Peter...
Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd in a solemn manner (3 times)corresponding also to being thrice-forgiven for his denials of the Lord (John 21:17)
All this proves is Peter was faltering while Jesus was trying to get Peter to admit that he loved Jesus...
Joh 21:17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
Obviously Jesus didn't have that problem with the other disciples...
Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood
As one can easily see, all the apostles and overseers were sanctioned to feed Jesus' sheep...They all understood that but Peter was having trouble with it...
Peter is to strengthen and confirm the rest ("the brethren") (Luke 22:32) Luk 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
Jesus was really worried about Peter losing his faith...And Peter ultimately DID lose his faith and denied Jesus three times...
That verse is more of a pep talk than anything else...None of the apostles strengthened the brethren more than the apostle Paul...
Peter worked the first miracle after Jesus ascended into heaven (Acts 3:6-7)
Act 3:8 And he leaping up stood, and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God.
Act 3:9 And all the people saw him walking and praising God:
Did any one praise Peter??? Did anyone canonize Peter??? Of course not...All glory went to God...Where it belongs...
to Peter was sent an angel to proclaim Christ's rising from the dead (Mark 16:7)
More disinformation...Why do you do that???
Mar 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
Mar 16:6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.
Mar 16:7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
The angel was not sent to Peter...The angel was sent to the tomb...He first spoke with Mary Magdeline and then sent thru Mary the other apostles, and finally Peter...
Peter was the first one the risen Christ appeared to (Luke 24:34)
Jesus certainly was not the first disciple to see the risen Lord...
Mar 16:9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
Mar 16:10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41)
Really??? Since when is Peter a 'them'???
Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. Act 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
Peter inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11)
The bible doesn't say that at all...Peter may have been the first one to be revealed...
Peter excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23).
Same thing...
of all the Apostles who later participated in the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), it was Peter alone who received the miraculous message from Heaven that Gentiles were to be received into the Church (Acts 10:46-48).
Probably because Peter was the hardest one to convince...
This constitutes a pattern. And a pattern that doesn't fit anybody but Peter.
The only pattern I see is a pattern of disinformation...
So let's get to the meat of it:
Where is the evidence that Peter ruled the other apostles???
If Peter is supreme among the apostles, why does he never refer to himself as such???
If Peter is supreme among the apostles, why do none of the other apostles refer to him in such a way???
If Peter is supreme among the apostles, why is he listed second in the list of the pillars of the church in Gal. 2:9???
If Peter is supreme among the apostles, why is he rebuked by Paul in Gal. 2:11 for Peter's error in doctrine???
If Peter is supreme among the apostles, why did Jesus not appear to him first after the resurrection? That privilege went to Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9-11)...
If Peter is supreme among the apostles, why did he write only two N.T. books while Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:7), wrote 13???
I'd like to see you answer those questions...
Indeed. See post here on how Rome "remembered" what it wanted despite lack of early evidence and scholarly conclusions. But as we have been told, historical reality is whatever Rome says it is.
Peter and the Non-Papacy, contra “Catholic Answers” Wrong, as while Peter was the initial street-level leader among the brethren, and the first church, and among other things befitting his leadership, the first to use the keys of the kingdom (the gospel, by faith in which souls are translated into the kingdom: Col. 1:13) and who exercised a general pastoral role (1Pt. 1:1) yet what is absent from Scripture (the weight of which is not the basis for the veracity of RC teaching anyway) is the Romish idea of papal “authority” over the rest of the apostles, and any apostolic successors (like for the martyred James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas, who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff) In fact, nowhere are the apostles or the church universal shown looking to Peter as its supreme authoritative infallible head, nor is Peter shown giving the final sentence on a matter to the church universal (James did so in Acts 15), or giving directions to another apostle (James did in Acts 21, confirmatory of Peter and Paul's doctrine), or calling the elders to counsel (Paul did so in Acts 20) or referring to his authority over the churches (Paul again: 1 Cor. 4:17, 7:17, 2 Cor. 11:28) or even calling himself a “father” (Paul again: (1 Cor. 4:15; 1Tim. 1:2) or personally directly leading them into activity — except to go fishing — or directly reproving another apostle. (Gal. 2:11-14) Instead, Peter is the only apostle ever shown to be leading others into error, and being sternly reproved by another, and which was by an apostle who was preaching Christ before he even met Peter. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list. As a group, which is consistent with his street-level leadership, but which does not translate into being the first of a line of supreme infallible heads in Rome. Moreover, Peter is distinctly listed after John in Gal. 2:9, among these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me. (Galatians 2:6)
Which again simply shows his leader qualities, as he did for good or bad as mentioned above (and exampled his love jumping naked into the water when Christ revealed himself, as well as in following Christ after his arrest, though he denied him out of prepentecostal weakness). And which reveals the importance of leadership, as well as the danger of unconditionally following such, and does not support the Romish perpetuated Petrine papacy, while it is Paul whom the Holy Spirit uses the most to disciple the churches, and examples the most pastoral qualities. It is not Peter (or Mary) that the Holy Spirit writes such things as: In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not? (2 Corinthians 11:27-29) But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. (1 Corinthians 15:10) ...and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). Only because, as with other support texts, he only cites the gospels, thus excluding Paul, whose labor of love the Holy Spirit gives the more press to shortly after his conversion and ascendancy, even reproving Peter, and after Acts 12 Peter is not mentioned again in the life of the church in Acts, nor is there even one command to the churches to submit to Peter as its supreme head in any of the letters to the churches, or even any mention of Peter therein except in two, mentioning that he was married, and one (the second listed) of those who apparently were pillars in Gal. 2. Nor is submission specifically to Peter ever commended or exhorted as a solution in the extensive epistles, or in the letters to the churches in Rev. 2,3 despite their problems. Moreover, he is not even mentioned among 27 brethren Paul names in his epistle to the Romans, despite the tradition holding that Peter founded that church and was its head. Thus we have an invisible Roman papacy in Scripture. Nor do any of the rest of the examples cited by “Catholic Answers” support the infallible perpetuated Petrine papacy, nor does any unique instrumentality overcome that of Paul. See parody, 51 Biblical Proofs Of A Pauline Papacy And Ephesian Primacy)
Wrong. Peter did not announce anything as being a dogmatic decision, but instead he showed leadership in giving his testimony of how God gave the Spirit and purified the hearts of the Gentiles by faith — which occurred before baptism, contrary to the Catholic norm — and exhorted the assembly not to add obedience to the whole law of Moses to the gospel of grace, which gospel Paul and Barnabas were already preaching. No attempt was made by Peter to doctrinal support this by Scripture, nor was it declared as the final word, and as the matter was not yet settled, Paul and Barnabas added their testimony of the grace of God. When they were done, then James gave his 169 word (in English) Scripturally substantiated conclusive sentence which settled the matter. (Acts 15:14-21)
Yet God chose Paul to receive this revelation independent of Peter, and to provide the theology of it, and to rebuke holy Peter who in weakness effectively denied the full import of the One New Man. (Eph. 2:15)
Peter being the NT Abraham is simply not what the New Testament teaches.
A unique name can hardly be though to be unique to Peter, and the NT only uses “Barjona” in relation to Peter as well, (Mt. 16:17) while contrary to the Catholic assertion is research which finds, “the currency of Peter's name is confirmed in Tal Ilan's identification of three additional first and second-century Palestinian Jewish individuals who bear the name Petros.* It is worth noting that the Palestinian Talmud and midrashim repeatedly feature an early Amoraic Rabbi Yose ben Petros, whose father constitutes proof that even this Greek name was by no means unknown in the early rabbinic period. *Ilan 2002 s.v . The first of these is Petros ( c. 30 CE), a freedman of Agrippa's mother Berenice, whom Josephus mentions in passing in Ant. 18.6.3 §156 ( v.l. Protos ). The other two names are Patrin ### son of Istomachus at Masada (ostracon no. 413, pre-73) and Patron # # son of Joseph in a Bar Kokhba period papyrus deed at Nah . al H . ever (P.Yadin 46, 134 CE). Although these two names seem at first sight di ff erent from Petros , the Aramaic rendition of Greek names in -?# as # # or ### was in fact well established, as Ilan 2002:27 demonstrates (cf. similarly Dalman 1905:176) — http://www.jjs-online.net/doc.php?id=055_01_058_1 — Simon Peter's Names in Jewish Sources M arkus B ockmuehl Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge Of course, Simon needed a new name, as Simon was a common name by the Second Temple Period, and tribe from which it comes “is the only one of the twelve tribes to be omitted from Moses’ blessing in Deut. 33, and it produced no judges or kings.”
This is another unproven statement stated as fact, while what the Spirit says in revealing it to us is what is critical. As regards Aramaic, though it certainly it is well supported that the Lord spoke Aramaic as well as Greek (a the common language of Palestine at that time), Hebrew and perhaps Latin, that He mainly spoke one of the forms of Aramaic to His disciples, and especially in Mt. 18, is not certain. Richard A. Horsley in “Galilee: History, Politics, People,” states, “It is difficult in the extreme to interpret the fragmentary evidence available and draw conclusions for the use of languages in late second-temple Galilee” (p. 247). Although Aramaic may have been the most common tongue, yet a survey covering 700 BC to 300 AD did find, "Of all Hebrew inscriptions from the Mediterranean world, 68 percent are in Greek, 18 percent in Hebrew or Aramaic, 12 percent in Latin, and 2 percent are bilingual." If we omit those from the Holy Land: 85 % Greek, 10% Latin, 5% in another language.. — Pieter van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs, in Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 2 Kampen Kok Pharos, 1991. Reviewed in CBQ, July 1993. https://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/LANGPAL.TXT
This is another unproven statement stated as fact. Only a relative few scholars hold that Matthew first appeared in Hebrew or Aramaic, while most believe that the four biblical Gospels were written in Greek. That the Spirit sometimes distinctively records something in Aramaic testifies to this being an exception. Moreover, the Aramaic argument as determinative is refuted by the very fact that the Holy Spirit choose to spread the word in Greek, and as can be seen by duplicate accounts, what He recorded is not necessarily even a verbatim record, as the same Spirit by which Christ spoke sometimes rephrases and expands what was said in providing a fuller revelation. Thus we should go by what the Holy Spirit chose to reveal the teachings of God in, not argue on that basis of what we think was meant in an original tongue. In addition, far from Aramaic being determinative, this linguistical issue is an ongoing scholarly debate. As another among many researchers finds, Both David Garland (“Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel”, New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1995) and Everett Ferguson (“The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today”, Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1996) point to the 1990 study by C.C. Caragounis, “Peter and the Rock” (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter) C.C. Caragounis’s study of this passage carefully argues, however, that the rock refers to something other than Peter. The demonstrative pronoun “this” [in the phrase “on this rock”] logically should refer to something other than the speaker or the one spoken to and would be appropriate only if Jesus were speaking about Peter in the third person and not speaking to him. If Jesus were referring to Peter, it would have been clearer to have, “You are Rock, and upon you I will build my church” (Caragounis 89). Petros usually meant a free-standing “stone” that could be picked up; and petrausually was used to mean “rock,” “cliff,” or “bedrock.” But the two terms could reverse their meaning and no clear-cut distinction can be made between the two (Caragounis, 12, 15). If the two words were intended to refer to the same thing, petros could have been used in both places since it could be used to mean both stone and rock. The use of two different terms in the saying, petros and petra, implies that the two were to be distinguished from each other. More In any case, the linguistical debate is endless and on going, while the answer is to examine what was said in context and how this is understood in the rest of Scripture. If Peter was called the Rock upon whom the church was continually built and was thus looked as that, rather than “this rock” in Mt. 16:18 referring to the truth of Peters confession and by extension Christ, then we most certainly would see this affirmed in the rest of the NT. However, in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the ancients concur with.
He means he found one, while in the NT Pétros is used for Peter while Petra is used for “rock” such as one builds his house upon that will not be moved, and for Christ. (rock, Mat_7:24-25 (2), Mat_16:18, Mat_27:60, Mar_15:46, Luk_6:48 (2), Luk_8:6, Luk_8:13, Rom_9:33, 1Co_10:4 (2), 1Pe_2:8 rocks, Mat_27:51, Rev_6:15-16 (2)) Other researchers at least hold that Pétros primarily denotes, “a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros ("small stone") then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra ("cliff, boulder," Abbott-Smith). "4074 (Pétros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (pétra) is a cliff" (TDNT, 3, 100). "4074 — http://biblehub.com/greek/4074.htm Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important...The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock,... And underneath Peter was a mantle of bedrock. The Catholic imagination knows no bounds when they need to argue for something that is not in Scripture, and as said and shown, Peter as being the infallible Roman rock upon which the church is continually built is simply not what the Holy Spirit reveals in the rest of Scripture, let alone his office been perpetuated by such. Outside of the absence of manifestation of this Roman papacy in Scripture, even Catholic scholars as well as others provide evidence against the Roman propaganda of such. Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy,” finds, If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (page 3) Catholic theologian and a Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study that, I stand with the majority of scholars who agree that one does not find evidence in the New Testament to support the theory that the apostles or their coworkers left [just] one person as “bishop” in charge of each local church... As the reader will recall, I have expressed agreement with the consensus of scholars that available evidence indicates that the church of Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century... — Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 221,222.
No, there is no “special sense” except what RCs read into the text, nor apart from the magisterial judicial aspect which flows from the OT, (Dt. 17:8-13) was the spiritual power of binding and loosing restricted to the magisterium, as it is provided for all righteous disciples. (Mt. 18:19,20; Ja. 5:16-18) The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18). Which key is the gospel, by which one is translated into the kingdom of Christ, (Col. 1:13) and which all are called to preach. As for Is. 22, if we are looking for a future fulfillment with permanency, both the language concept of a key and being a father to the house of David corresponds more fully to Christ, and who alone is promised a continued reign (though when He has put all His enemies under His feet, He will deliver the kingdom to His Father: 1Cor. 15:24-28). For it is Christ who alone is said to be clothed "with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle," (Rv. 1:13; cf. Is. 22:21) and who came to be an everlasting father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. (Is. 22:21; cf. Heb. 7:14; 8:8; 9:6) And who specifically is said to be given "the key of the house of David," "so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open," (Is. 22:22) as He now “hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” (Rev. 3:7) and is a nail in a sure place who sits in a glorious throne in His father's house, (Is. 22:23; cf. Rv. 3:7) And upon Him shall hang “all the glory of his father’s house, the offspring and the issue, ” (Is. 22:24) for He is the head of the body, the church, (Colossians 1:18) "from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,“ (Eph. 4:16) and in Jesus Christ dwells "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col. 2:9) Thus neither Eliakim nor Peter are shown having this manner of fulfillment, nor does it necessarily denote successors (Christ has none Himself, but took over from the Father). Thus if this " a nail in a sure place" corresponds to anyone future then it is Christ, and nothing is said of Eliakim having a vice regent. Thus this prophecy is actually contrary to Peter being that Eliakim.
Which was fitting, both due to his thrice denial as well as his leadership, which was seen in leading souls to go fishing or treating Gentiles as second class believers, or bravely preaching the gospel and enduring persecution. And John 21:15-1, as with other proffered proof texts, simply does not translate into an infallible, supreme, perpetuated Petrine papacy. Instead, only presbuteros/episkopos are seen being ordained in a continual sense, (1Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-7) and to which are committed the care of the churches. (Acts 20:28)
Same as above and supports the principal of leadership. Just as the magisterial office is supported by Scripture, but not the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults), so also is leadership, but not a perpetually ensured infallible papacy to whom all the church looks to as its exalted head, with full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered, and who is judged by no one. |
Please show where the Holy Spirit ever inspired anyone to write that Mary was the mother of God. If you can’t please explain the justification to go beyond what the Holy Spirit inspired to be written.
If you are speaking in terms of Sola Scriptura, then no, it cannot be shown where the Holy Spirit ever inspired anyone to write that Mary was the “mother of God.” In the same way, it cannot be shown where the Holy Spirit ever inspired anyone to write that “Jesus is God.” But we believe that Jesus is God.
We believe this because the essential truth that Jesus is God is revealed in Scripture. Similarly, the essential truth that Mary is the mother of God is found in Scripture.
I have asked the following several times, and have never received a response.
Can you show me how the following verses do not show that Mary is the mother of God?
Matthew 1 tells us about the birth of Jesus that, when his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Matthew 1 tells us that the angel of the Lord told Joseph that Mary shall bring forth a son, who shall save his people from their sins; that this was done, to fulfill that which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”
Luke 1 tells us that the angel Gabriel told Mary that she shall conceive in her womb, and bring forth a son, and shall call his name Jesus; that He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. The angel further said The Holy Ghost shall come upon her, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow her: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of her shall be called the Son of God.
Elisabeth’s son leaped in her womb when Mary greeted her; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
After Mary gave birth to Jesus in Bethlehem, the angel of the Lord told shepherds that unto them is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
It was revealed to Simeon by the Holy Ghost that he should not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, Simeon took him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel, and Simeon said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.
When the wise men come into the house where they found the King of the Jews, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him.
Joseph took Jesus and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
"I and the Father are One (John 10:30 NASB)."
“I tell you the truth … before Abraham was born, I AM!” (John 8:58)
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.