[Ridley's Own]

Originally posted by Joel
A very excellent but rather hard book to read is "The Two Babylons" by Archbishop Alexander Hyslop.

Hislop is doo-doo reading. And he was never an Archbishop. That book's entire thesis (that Roman Catholicism is warmed-over Babylonian paganism) rests on attempting to draw conclusions based on faulty connections and even faultier historical documentation such as this: Isis, Horus and Siris were Egyptian gods. IHS was (at one point) imprinted on all communion wafers. IHS on the wafers really stand for Isis Horus and Siris. Therefore, Roman Catholics are devil worshippers.

Stay very far away from Hislop. There are much better critiques of Roman Catholic ecclesiology and dogma than that.

[JerryLove]

I'm sorry, but I still have not seen any interpretation of "the keys to the kingdom" which does not hand Peter a level of authority over the church.

[boogeray]

Originally posted by JerryLove
I'm sorry, but I still have not seen any interpretation of "the keys to the kingdom" which does not hand Peter a level of authority over the church.

(me)either way Jesus didn't give that authority to some position ... such as "pope" ... either Jesus gave it to peter only or He gave it to all christians

the proof that peter exercised any special authority is not there

[elijah77jc]

Originally posted by ICTHUS
First, let me point out that the word petros and petra were synonyms in First Century greek.........

it seems to me that catholics try to milk this verse for all its worth.
i don't think it really matters if peter was a big rock or a little rock anyways...

the fact is that we see no biblical support for peter taking his position as the pope. from what i see, catholics today view the pope as "the man" (sorry i couldn't think of a better word ) and peter just just wasn't viewed this way niether did he act like it. and as it was said earlier, James jesus half brother was in charge at jerusalem and paul was over the gentiles though this didn't make them greater than anyone else as being the pope would. the biblical backing for a pope just isn't there.

[Ranger_Aragorn]

the fact is that we see no biblical support for peter taking his position as the pope. from what i see, catholics today view the pope as "the man"

Pope simply means papa, or father. The whole "key" thing is drawn from Is 22:19-22

This talks about the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of David. These verses do show authority, and that he is a father-figure. It also shows succession. As long as the Kingdom of David continued, so did the office of Prime Minister.

the fact is that we see no biblical support for peter taking his position as the pope. from what i see, catholics today view the pope as "the man" (sorry i couldn't think of a better word ) and peter just just wasn't viewed this way niether did he act like it. and as it was said earlier, James jesus half brother was in charge at jerusalem and paul was over the gentiles though this didn't make them greater than anyone else as being the pope would. the biblical backing for a pope just isn't there.

Yes, Peter was actually viewed highly of. His authority was respected and in the early Church councils his word was final.

When you read the Gospels, St. Peter is unmistakably leader of the Apostles.

As for the Council of Jerusalem....

Have you read the first 12 chapters of acts? If you do, you will find that every chapter shows St. Peter in a leadership position. St. James only appears briefly, and never has a leadership role. In Gal 1:18-19 we are told that Paul went to Jerusalem after his conversion specifically to confer with Peter. He stayed with Peter for 15 days, while only visiting James briefly.

At the Council of Jerusalem, in Acts 15, it was St. Peter's statements that settled the serious doctrinal dispute that was the reason for the council. His statements silenced the assemply of presbyters and Apostles, including James.

We know from Church History that St. James was the Bishop of Jerusalem, and, as Acts describes, he was concerned for the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem who felt their ancient customs threatened by the great number of Gentile converts.

This background explains why St. James made the concluding remarks at the council.

Some more interesting info on Peter. He often speaks for the rest of the Apostles (Mt 19:27;Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69) The Apostles are sometimes refered to as "Peter and his companions" (Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7; Acts 2:37) Peters name always heads the lists of the Apostles (Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13)

And Peters name is mentioned 191 times, which is more than the rest of the Apostles combined, 130 times.

After Peter, the most frequently mentioned Apostle is John, at 48.

Peter led the meeting which elected the first successor to an Apostle (Acts 1:13-26) preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14) and received the first converts (Acts 2:41). Peter also preformed the first miracle after Pentacost (Acts 3:6-7) inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11) and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:21). Peter is the first Apostle to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-41)

paul was over the gentiles

and yet: Peter first recieved the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16) and commanded the first Gentile converts to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48)

[notmyown]

Whoopty-doo. And I don't call anyone Rabbi or Abba or Father except for God. He's my Papa.

Satan's name (Devil, Satan) is mentioned in the KJV 110 times, as opposed to Isaiah's, which is used only 32 times in the KJV. I think Satan might really be one of God's messengers, really.

Repetition of a name does not make a name more important. Sorry.

And what about the St thing? The Greek word for saint is hagios, which is mentioned 40 times, always in the plural. Perhaps I should point out that this is more of a cultural difference than a religious one, but I really think that God doesn't place a higher distinction, NOT ON THIS EARTH AT LEAST, on certain saints. I'm St Kevin. I haven't been canonized, but I'm a child of God. I know that you are too, but my point is we're all saints and that the idea of canonized saints is extra-(although not necessarily anti-)Biblical. And anyway, since when was salvation based on the merit system?

And there is no dispute over the fact that Paul was the first apostle to the GENTILE NATION, which I believe elijah77jc was referring to.

Let me just reaffirm that I do not believe the papacy to be anti-biblical, but I certainly don't agree with it. I should also mention that we're talking about the bishop TO ROME thing. Peter died, valiantly. No one took his place, there was no succession until Constantine, I believe.

[notmyown]

I want to apologize for that little blast there. I realize now as I pray about it that this issue is not something I should be debating about. In fact, I think that there are much more important salvation-based issues we could be talking about. This squabble has no eternal value, and it took me until now to realize it. You can continue if you wish.

Sorry if I've insulted or offended you in any way. God loves us all, and whether the Pope is the authority over all Christians or not, I think Peter is with me when I say, of Jesus, not of the pope,

"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

God Bless You - and just make sure you know Him (and I'm guessing we all do) and then we can get on to the little stuff like this. Remember Romans 14, Catholics and Protestants alike.

[Ranger_Aragorn]

Note how I said:

Some more interesting info on Peter.

This wasn't really proof for what I was saying, I just thought it was something interesting you might want to hear

Let me just reaffirm that I do not believe the papacy to be anti-biblical, but I certainly don't agree with it. I should also mention that we're talking about the bishop TO ROME thing. Peter died, valiantly. No one took his place, there was no succession until Constantine, I believe.

No, there was unbroken succession. Here is a list for all the Popes and some info on them:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

And this link gives some stuff on the Bishop of Rome:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp

"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

Of course Catholics believe we get salvation only from God also

[joelsdad]

is it just a coincidence that peters name means rock? ... did Jesus change his name to peter or rock? ... or was he called peter before he met up with Jesus?

Peter may have been called Cephas Petros as it was common in the hebrew world for many people to both have a Hebrew and a greek name (i.e. Saul Paulus who became just Paul)

As to the Petros and Petra and the masculine and feminine case of these two nouns I can only say this after having studied 1 year of Greek and using my deictionary and grammar books- The masculine and femine case of a noun does not something is male and osmething is female. It has to do with major and minor meaning.

Yes, Peter was actually viewed highly of. His authority was respected and in the early Church councils his word was final.

Yes Peter was spoken highly of. He was oneof the twelve. Joh was the beloved of the Lord and James led the church counsels in Jerusalem. And Peters word was far from final as both the Jewish wing and the PAul rejected statrements of Peter.


and yet: Peter first recieved the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16) and commanded the first Gentile converts to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48)

That is the keys used by Peter that Jesus gaver him. Unto Peter was the authority to open the gospel to preach to the gentiles. Paul did not open his ministry to the gentiles until Peter first showed that the Lord was truly bringing the gospel to the gentiles. Once again far from being a Pope Peter was just onew of the twelve. And the First mention of a Pope we have in history from any reliable source is Constantine. All from Peter to Constrantine were not popes at all. The church was fighting for her survival most of the time from 35Ad until Constantine legalized Christianity and flooded the church with Pagan ritualism, symbols and modes of worship.

Stay very far away from Hislop. There are much better critiques of Roman Catholic ecclesiology and dogma than that.

Hislop is criticized because He is very adamantr in his writing and pulls no punches. Once again people scream, yell and call him names, but no one yet has been able to refute his work. I am not trying to condemn Catholics at all. There are many precious saints of God who are Catholics. BUT, as many on this thread know there are many doctrines of Catholicism that run contrary to the clear teachings of Scripture.

[notmyown]

Ranger: Yeah, I know. Just a reminder to all of us - I was just pointing out that the redeeming issue isn't the pope so much as God.

And I know you know that, and I know that most of us know that. Sorry if I came across differently :-)

And, I stand corrected.

[Ranger_Aragorn]

Yes Peter was spoken highly of. He was oneof the twelve. Joh was the beloved of the Lord and James led the church counsels in Jerusalem. And Peters word was far from final as both the Jewish wing and the PAul rejected statrements of Peter.

He was the leader of the Apostles, not just one of them. This is clear in Scripture.

John being beloved does not give him the keys.

Did you read what I wrote on the Council of Jerusalem?

As for Peters word being final:

Your standing on Paul is not supportable. St. Paul correcting St. Peter for weak behavior is no different than St. Catherine of Siena correcting weak Popes in the Middle Ages. There was no doctrine involved. St. Peter himself had settled the doctrinal point at the Council of Jerusalem. St. Paul corrected St. Peter for being unwilling to confront the Judaizers from Jerusalem. Remember, St. Paul was among those who fell silent at the Council of Jerusalem once St. Peter had spoken.

And the First mention of a Pope we have in history from any reliable source is Constantine. All from Peter to Constrantine were not popes at all. The church was fighting for her survival most of the time from 35Ad until Constantine legalized Christianity and flooded the church with Pagan ritualism, symbols and modes of worship

Do you have proof that there were no Popes inbetween Peter and Constantine? Or are you just assuming that because you can't find a source.

Did you read the website I posted? I don't expect you to believe it, but it is still interesting.

You're right, the Church was fighting for her survival most of the time from 35AD up. And every single Pope during the time the Roman Empire was persecuting Christianity (200-250 years about), except one, was martyred. I think the Romans knew who the head of the Church was.

A Roman Emperor's greatest fear was a rival to the throne. And yet Emperor Decius (249-251 A.D.) made this remark:

"I would far rather receive news of a rival to the throne than another bishop of Rome." (Christian History, Issure 27 entitled "Persecution of the Church" 1990 Vol. IX No. 3 p.22)

He said this after having executed Pope Fabian in 250 A.D.

[Raphael]

Because I don't want to post big long articles, I'll post the following links:

Rocks and Stones
Upon this Rock
And last but not least:
Was Peter a pope?

[notmyown]

If you don't want to read the whole thing, here are the highlights:

You must show that Peter was the head of the apostles and that he exercised full, immediate and universal power in the Church... [because of this:]

"The office uniquely committed by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, abides in the Bishop of the Church of Rome. He is the head of the College of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the Pastor of the universal Church here on earth. Consequently, by virtue of his office, he has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power" (The canon law, 331).

It is evident that Christ gave authority to the apostle Peter. "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). The issue is whether this authority was unique to Peter. Evidently not, for soon afterwards Jesus gives exactly the same authority to all the apostles, "Verily I say to you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 18:18).

The apostles did not understand Jesus' words in Matthew 16 as Roman Catholics interpret them. If He made him 'chief steward' and 'prime minister' and 'the head of the college of bishops', why is it that even up to the day before Christ suffered, they were still arguing among themselves who should be considered the greatest? (Luke 22:24-26). Jesus' reply is very significant. He did not remind them what He told Peter at Caesarea Philippi, but simply scolded them for their pagan-like reasonings.

Again, it is true that Jesus commissioned Peter to feed the sheep (John 21:15-17). However, this was not a unique office committed to Peter alone. The apostle Paul tells the elders of Ephesus, "Take heed 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" (Acts 20:28). The apostle Peter himself says, "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder…Feed the flock of God which is among you" (1 Peter 5:1,2).


You refer to Isaiah 22:22. "And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open." As a matter of fact this verse is quoted "almost verbatim" in the New Testament, specifically in Revelation 3:7 and not in Matthew 16. "These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth." The key of the house of David is in the hand of Christ, not Peter!

Rome would make Peter the chief shepherd, 'the Church's supreme pastor' (Catechism, para 857). Peter himself would never accept this usurped title for it belongs to Another. Peter calls Jesus Christ 'the Chief Shepherd' (1 Peter 5:4).

[Ranger_Aragorn]

Raphael. I read some of that, and I'll try to read some more, but in the first couple of paragraphs there was already a lie. Matthew's gospels were too written in Aramaic/Hebrew.

Rome would make Peter the chief shepherd, 'the Church's supreme pastor' (Catechism, para 857). Peter himself would never accept this usurped title for it belongs to Another. Peter calls Jesus Christ 'the Chief Shepherd' (1 Peter 5:4).

Um, OK, here is some of paragraph 875:

"You are the eternal Shepherd who never leaves his flock untended. Through the apostles you watch over us and protect us always. You made them shepherds of the flock to share in the work of your Son ..."

That sounds like it is talking about God there. We believe Peter is the head of the Church........on earth. But Christ is King, and everything we have in the RCC comes from Him.

The issue is whether this authority was unique to Peter. Evidently not, for soon afterwards Jesus gives exactly the same authority to all the apostles, "Verily I say to you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 18:18).

But were they given the key? And why, if Peter would merely be another Apostle in the crowd, did Jesus tell him seperate?

they were still arguing among themselves who should be considered the greatest? (Luke 22:24-26). Jesus' reply is very significant. He did not remind them what He told Peter at Caesarea Philippi, but simply scolded them for their pagan-like reasonings.

How did he scold them for pagan reasonings? I really don't see that at all. Sounds like he was just teaching them a little humility, mabey?

Again, it is true that Jesus commissioned Peter to feed the sheep (John 21:15-17). However, this was not a unique office committed to Peter alone. The apostle Paul tells the elders of Ephesus, "Take heed 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" (Acts 20:28). The apostle Peter himself says, "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder…Feed the flock of God which is among you" (1 Peter 5:1,2).

Um, OK, so if the President says "my fellow Americans" in one of his speaches, he's no longer the President?

And yet again, Peter is told to feed the sheep individually, and by Christ Himself (unless you can find a verse were Jesus tells the other Apostles to feed his sheep). Coincidence?

You refer to Isaiah 22:22. "And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open." As a matter of fact this verse is quoted "almost verbatim" in the New Testament, specifically in Revelation 3:7 and not in Matthew 16. "These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth." The key of the house of David is in the hand of Christ, not Peter!

It is actually starting at verse 19. Wow, so Jesus was lying? He never did give Peter the keys????????

2 Peter 1:20 says "no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of personal interpretation."

I wouldn't assume what that verse means, if you truely can't be sure.

[Raphael]

Aramaic Rocks vs Greek Rocks (that sounds like sports game)
It is speculation that Matthew's Gospel was originally in Aramaic is just that speculation.
There is much more evidence that Matthew's gospel was not a translation from Aramaic.

from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
3. Relation of Greek and Aramaic Gospels:
One thing which seems certain is that whatever this Hebrew (Aramaic) document may have been, it was not an original form from which the present Greek Gospel of Matthew was translated, either by the apostle himself, or by somebody else, as was maintained by Bengel, Thiersch, and other scholars. Indeed, the Greek Matthew throughout bears the impress of being not a translation at all, but as having been originally written in Greek, and as being less Hebraistic in the form of thought than some other New Testament writings, e.g. the Apocalypse. It is generally not difficult to discover when a Greek book of this period is a translation from the Hebrew or Aramaic. That our Matthew was written originally in Greek appears, among other things, from the way in which it makes use of the Old Testament, sometimes following the Septuagint, sometimes going back to the Hebrew. Particularly instructive passages in this regard are Matthew 12:18-21 and Matthew 13:14, Matthew 13:15, in which the rendering of the Alexandrian translation would have served the purposes of the evangelist, but he yet follows more closely the original text, although he adopts the Septuagint wherever this seemed to suit better than the Hebrew (compare Keil's Commentary on Matthew, loc. cit.).
The external evidences to which appeal is made in favor of the use of an original Hebrew or Aramaic. Matthew in the primitive church are more than elusive. Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, V, 10) mentions as a report (λέγεται, légetai) that Pantaenus, about the year 170 AD, found among the Jewish Christians, probably of South Arabia, a Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, left there by Bartholomew; and Jerome, while in the Syrian Berea, had occasion to examine such a work, which he found in use among the Nazarenes, and which at first he regarded as a composition of the apostle Matthew, but afterward declared not to be such, and then identified with the Gospel according to the Hebrews (Evangelium secundum or juxta Hebraeos) also called the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, or of the Nazarenes, current among the Nazarenes and Ebionites (De Vir. Illustr., iii; Contra Pelag., iii. 2; Commentary on Mat_12:13, etc.). For this reason the references by Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius to the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew are by many scholars regarded as referring to this Hebrew Gospel which the Jewish Christians employed, and which they thought to be the work of the evangelist (compare for fuller details See Hauck-Herzog, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche, XII, article “Matthaeus der Apostel”). Just what the original Hebrew. Mathew was to which Papias refers (assuming it to have had a real existence) must, with our present available means, remain an unsolved riddle, as also the possible connection between the Greek and Hebrew texts. Attempts like those of Zahn, in his Kommentar on Matthew, to explain readings of the Greek text through an inaccurate understanding of the imaginary Hebrew original are arbitrary and unreliable. There remains, of course, the possibility that the apostle himself, or someone under his care (thus Godet), produced a Greek recension of an earlier Aramaic work.
The prevailing theory at present is that the Hebrew Matthean document of Papias was a collection mainly of the discourses of Jesus (called by recent critics Q), which, in variant Greek translations, was used both by the author of the Greek Matthew and by the evangelist Luke, thus explaining the common features in these two gospels (W.C. Allen, however, in his Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Matthew, disputes Luke's use of this supposed common source, Intro, xlvi ff). The use of this supposed Matthean source is thought to explain how the Greek Gospel came to be named after the apostle. It has already been remarked, however, that there is no good reason for supposing that the “Logia” of Papias was confined to discourses. See further on “sources” below.

Also in the sources I provided links to up above, the author states that even if Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, and Jesus spoke that sentance in Aramaic, it is still possible that Jesus used the greek words, afterall they were both contempory languages.
In Mattew 16:18, a clever play on words is used, which is said in Aramaic would have lost it's "humour". If Jesus had said: "You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my Church", then I hardly doubt Matthew, in translating that to Greek would have changed it.
It would have read: You are Petros and on this Petros I build my Church. (to use the mascaline word). Matthew wouldn't have thrown in the two different words, unless they had special significance.
I think Jesus (when he originally said this) threw in two greek words which had similar meanings to each other, but meant different types of Rocks (i.e. big rocks and small rocks). Afterall don't you occassionally use the odd word that isn't English? (I know I do, I often through the odd Afrikaans word into what I am saying)

Onto Keys (C#minor...oh sorry, wrong sort of keys)
My understanding (and that of many many other protests) is this: Peter had just hit on the single most important revelation in the History of Man, that Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God. That is the very foundation that the Church is built on. You take that Revelation away and Christianity is a pointless waste of time, a hollowshell that would have fallen down millennia ago.

From John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
"The keys" of the Kingdom are abilities to open and explain the Gospel truths, and a mission and commission from Christ to make use of them; and being said to be given to Peter particularly, denotes his after qualifications, commission, work, and usefulness in opening the door of faith, or preaching the Gospel first to the Jews, Acts 2:1 and then to the Gentiles, Acts 10:1 and who was the first that made use of the keys of evangelical knowledge with respect to both, after he, with the rest of the apostles, had received an enlarged commission to preach the Gospel to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Otherwise these keys belonged to them all alike; for to the same persons the keys, and the use of them, appertained, on whom the power of binding and loosing was bestowed; and this latter all the disciples had, as is manifest from Matthew 18:18 wherefore this does not serve to establish the primacy and power of Peter over the rest of the apostles; nor do keys design any lordly domination or authority; nor did Christ allow of any such among his apostles; nor is it his will that the ministers of his word should lord it over his heritage: he only is king of saints, and head of his church; he has the key of David, with which he opens, and no man shuts, and shuts, and no man opens; and this he keeps in his own hand, and gives it to none. Peter is not the door-keeper of heaven to let in, nor keep out, whom he pleases; nor has his pretended successor the keys of hell and death; these also are only in Christ's hands: though it has been said of the pope of Rome, that if he sends millions of men to hell, none should say to him, what dost thou? but the keys here mentioned are the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or of the Gospel, which was shut up in the Jewish nation, through the ignorance, malice, and calumnies of the Scribes and Pharisees, who would neither embrace it, or enter into the kingdom of God themselves, nor suffer others that were going to enter into it; and through their taking away the key of knowledge, or the right interpretation of the word of God; and through a judicial blindness, which that nation in general was given up to: and this was shut up to the Gentiles through the natural darkness that was spread over them, and through want of a divine revelation, and persons sent of God to instruct them: but now Christ was about, and in a little time he would (for these words, with what follow, are in the future tense) give his apostles both a commission and gifts, qualifying them to open the sealed book of the Gospel, and unlock the mysteries of it, both to Jews and Gentiles, especially the latter. Keys are the ensigns of treasurers, and of stewards, and such the ministers of the Gospel are; they have the rich treasure of the word under their care, put into their earthen vessels to open and lay before others; and they are stewards of the mysteries and manifold grace of God, and of these things they have the keys. So that these words have nothing to do with church power and government in Peter, nor in the pope, nor in any other man, or set of men whatever; nor to be understood of church censures, excommunications, admissions, or exclusions of members: nor indeed are keys of any such similar use; they serve for locking and unlocking doors, and so for keeping out those that are without, and retaining those that are within, but not for the expulsion of any: but here they are used in a figurative sense, for the opening and explaining the truths of the Gospel, for which Peter had excellent gifts and abilities.

Peter was the first of the Apostles to recognise Jesus as being the Christ.

Here is something for you to think over:
Your argument for Peter being the one who was in charge and the first pope is that Jesus singled him out. FOUR VERSES LATER JESUS CALLS PETER SATAN! Jesus calls Peter, and only Peter that. Did that make Peter Satan? No it doesn't. But by the Catholic logic of "Jesus was singling Peter out then, that makes him pope" the person who the Catholics call the first Pope is Satan and a Stumbling block to Him.

(Ranger Aragorn)
Um, OK, so if the President says "my fellow Americans" in one of his speaches, he's no longer the President?

(Roger)
I would thump him one for implying that I am an American.
(Just joking, but seriously, I'm South African)

Peter called himself an elder. That is not in debate, and never was. But what he does say is significant. Peter says: To the elders: I, who am also an elder...." Were Peter in charge of the whole Church, he would hardly have to justify his position as an elder, to fellow elders. Yet he felt the need to remind them that he was an elder.

(Ranger Aragorn)
And yet again, Peter is told to feed the sheep individually, and by Christ Himself (unless you can find a verse were Jesus tells the other Apostles to feed his sheep). Coincidence?

(Roger)
Just what do you think Shepherding is?
Matthew 28:16-20
16 But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, to the mount where Jesus appointed them. 17 And seeing Him, they worshiped Him. But they doubted.
18 And coming up Jesus talked with them, saying, All authority in Heaven and on earth was given to Me.
19 Then having gone, disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things, whatever I commanded you. And, behold, I am with you all the days until the completion of the age. Amen.

(Ranger Aragorn)
2 Peter 1:20 says "no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of personal interpretation."

I wouldn't assume what that verse means, if you truely can't be sure.

(Roger)
But I am truly sure of what that Scripture means.