[notmyown]

For those who want to continue the debate started in the Jehovah's Witness thread...

[joelsdad]

Okay,

The papacy is a figment of the Cathokic church alone. Though it was supposed carried on without break from Peter, the only proof of suppossed Popes from peter to Constantine was the document named the doantion of Constantine which was admitted to be a fraud by the Jesuits.

In fact Peter never led the Church in any official or physical capacity. James the lords half brother led the Jewish wing of the church in Jerusalem untilk they had to flee and Paul was the head of the Gentile wing of the church.

Paul even rebuked Peter which is something a subordinate should not do to his spiritual leader (even Paul acknowledfged this when he repented for calling the high priest a whited sephulcre as written in Acts.)

The church, by byiblical definition was defined to not have a physical supreme head on earth, but its ordered to be sisters through the local assemblies run by the local Pastors.

[notmyown]

That's true. It seems that the biblical precedent for church structure is local. You don't see the church in Jerusalem controlling all the doctrines of the Gentile churches. The whole idea of a 'Bishop of Rome' being head of the church didn't start until the Roman Catholic Church was made the official church of the Roman Empire, several centuries (I believe) after Peter's death.

Someone else, perhaps could look into history a little bit better than I.

[JerryLove]

So when Jesus gave Peter "the keys to teh kingdom", and declared him the rock upon which the church would be built... what did that mean?

[notmyown]

Don't challenge my theology! It's not fair...

Well that's a good point... I need to sit somewhere and think now. I can't remember if you've been to the JW forum, but if you haven't we've been discussing it already, maybe smarter minds have some better ideas than I do over there I'll link you when I figure out where it is.

[Travis]

Originally posted by JerryLove
So when Jesus gave Peter "the keys to teh kingdom", and declared him the rock upon which the church would be built... what did that mean?

He was talking about Peter as an apostle. The apostolic witness was the foundation of the Church.

[notmyown]

could you elaborate? I don't know if I follow the second sentence.

[Joel]

So when Jesus gave Peter "the keys to teh kingdom", and declared him the rock upon which the church would be built... what did that mean?

First let us clear up one thing, the Rock on which the Church is built is the fact that Jeus is the Messiah the Son of the Living God. Throughout Scripture Jesus is referred to as the Rock of the church and the rock of ages. Also the construct in Greek lets us know tha the Rock Jesus was referring ot was Peters statement and not Peter. I will (now that I have a scanner ) send the detailed grammatical info from a web site if one so requests.

But now as to the keys of the Kingdom--very simply (God does try to use the KISS method for us humans) keys open doors and unto Peter was given the authority to open the kingdom-first to the samaritans and then to the gentiles. It is not some super mystical sense of authority over issues like some would beleive.

The binding and loosing does not even have to do with the forgivenness of sins, but only church matters of discipline.

[Joel]

Someone else, perhaps could look into history a little bit better than I

A very excellent but rather hard book to read is "The Two Babylons" by Archbishop Alexander Hyslop. It was written in the middle of the nineteenth century and has yet to be factually refuted. It gives a powerful written history of the Catholkic Church and many of its practices , the beginning of the papacy, and how the "Bishop of Rome" came to the ascendency as the "First amongst equals". It is very challenging but once again unrefuted in its accuracy to this day.

[ICTHUS]

Okay, the attack on the Papacy, all things considered:

The arguments I've heard so far

I. The Petra v. Petros argument, which I've refuted, but for the benefit of those who didnt see the post in the Jehovah's Witness thread, I'll post it again.

First, let me point out that the word petros and petra were synonyms in First Century greek. They meant "small stone" and "large rock" in some early Greek poetry before the time of Christ, but that distinction had all but disappeared by the time Matthews Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can be found in Attic Greek, but not in Koine Greek, (the dialect which the Gospel of Matthew was written in). In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant "rock." If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. The missionary’s argument didn’t work and showed a faulty knowledge of Greek. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).

But theres more...we must go to from the Greek, to the Aramaic.
The Gospel of Matthew was ORIGINALLY written in Aramaic, but because Greek was the common language of the meditteranean world, the Gospel of Matthew was translated into Greek. Today, sadly, we have no copies of the original Aramaic of the Gospel of Matthew.

Four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians, St. Paul refers to St. Peter by his Aramaic title, Kephas.

Now, we must then understand what the word Kepha means in Aramaic. It means a LARGE ROCK (as in a boulder). If Jesus wanted to call Peter a little rock, he would have used the Aramaic word "evna". And we see that this is not the case, since the word "Kephas" (or Cephas, its the same word, just a different transliteration from the Aramaic) appears several times throughout the New Testament.

So, what Jesus was really saying was "Blessed are you, Simon son of John, for man has not revealed this to you, but the Spirit of God. And you shall be Kepha (Peter) (big rock) and on this Kepha I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall never prevail against it"

You might ask, then, if Peter was not to be addressed as the Rock upon which Jesus built His Church, did he not use the word "Petra" (which means a big rock, in the strictest sense of Greek) rather than the word "Petros" which means a little rock...

The answer is: because Matthew HAD NO CHOICE. Aramaic and Greek nouns take different gender endings...

In Matthew 16:18 in Aramaic, you can use the word "Kepha" in both places with no problem. However, you run into serious problems in Greek because Greek nouns take masculine, feminine, and neuter gender endings..

The Greek word "petra" (which means a large rock, a boulder, as I've said already) is feminine. You can use it for the second half of Matthew 16:18 with no problem, BUT, for the first part of the verse, where Christ gives St. Peter his new name, you cannot give a man a feminine name (thus, you can't name a man "Petra") at least back then you couldnt.

So, in the translation from Aramaic to Greek, some of the play on Words has been lost.

Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.

Please check out this website to view the material I used in the construction of this apology.

And Wally, do you know the difference between Attic and Koine Greek? You said you weren't willing to accept that petra and petros were the same word, but in the Koine dialect, they are. Also, it doesn't really matter, since I've demonstrated why Matthew had to use the word Petros (little rock) in translating the Aramaic to the Greek - simply because you cant name a man "Petra" because its a feminine noun.

[notmyown]

Umm... so Peter isn't a small rock. I'm glad we've figured this out. But the question of Peter's authority as the "Bishop of Rome" is not in the Bible, nor is the idea of papal succession. You still have not adressed the issue at hand, but we've all beat around the bush. So where is the Biblical precedent?

[ICTHUS]

Originally posted by notmyown
But the question of Peter's authority as the "Bishop of Rome" is not in the Bible, nor is the idea of papal succession.

So, what, Peter suddenly died as soon as Revelation was written?

Just because something isint written down in the Bible doesnt mean it wasn't meant to be.

You fundamentalists just cant get your mind around the idea...

Im sorry, but I'm tired, strung out and my parents are in the middle of a divorce. I dont have time for this..at least not now. Maybe Lauren (2ManArmy) can help you, but until I'm less strung out, I dont have the time or the patience for this crap. I know this sounds like a cop out, but its not that I dont feel like answering you. Its that I need to save my "spiritual resources" for the things that are really important, like keeping my soul alive and healthy. I need some "off time". For this reason, I'll probably be avoiding theology/apologetics and just drawing nearer to my Jesus..

I've sent word to the Catholic forum that this debate exists, however.

Eli, eli, lama sabbacthani?

ICTHUS

"The man who is well grounded in the testimonies of the Scriptures is the bulwark of the Church" - St. Jerome

[Raphael]

“For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because Peter had said, “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my church. For the Rock (petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself also built. For other foundation no man lay that this is laid, which is Christ Jesus.”
(Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John).

Oops, Augustine agree's with us protestants.

(ICTHUS)
So, what, Peter suddenly died as soon as Revelation was written?

(Roger)
Actually given that the earliest possible date of Revelation being written is just after the death of Nero, and Peter was executed on the command of Nero, Peter was already dead when Revelation was written.

Also Paul and Peter would have been in Rome at the same time (when Paul was in Prison) surely Peter would have visited Paul, and Paul would have mentioned it in his letters from death row?
Or atleast Paul would have mentioned Peter was in Rome with him? (instead he mentions only Luke)

[Goldenchild16]

Originally posted by notmyown
Umm... so Peter isn't a small rock. I'm glad we've figured this out. But the question of Peter's authority as the "Bishop of Rome" is not in the Bible, nor is the idea of papal succession. You still have not adressed the issue at hand, but we've all beat around the bush. So where is the Biblical precedent?

I'm at work right now so I can't get to deep into this, but this verse is a PROMISE that Jesus will give Peter the authority over the Church. The actual action takes place in chapter 18 "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep."

And there is plenty more. I'll get on it later.

[boogeray]

(icthus)The arguments I've heard so far

I. The Petra v. Petros argument, which I've refuted, but for the benefit of those who didnt see the post in the Jehovah's Witness thread, I'll post it again.

(me)how successful your refutation is, is a matter of opinion ... as a good catholic you should attempt to refute this, otherwise you would be called something else, not catholic

(icthus)Also, it doesn't really matter, since I've demonstrated why Matthew had to use the word Petros (little rock) in translating the Aramaic to the Greek - simply because you cant name a man "Petra" because its a feminine noun.

(me)no matter how you explain it, petra & petros are still two different words that have different meanings ... petra----a huge mass of rock & petros----a detached stone or boulder

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?

Mat 4:18 says And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.

simon was called peter ... was this a nickname the other fishermen gave him? ... we all know peter was known for being rough around the edges ... he was more than likely very hard headed & hard to deal with on occasions ... maybe he was called peter because of this

i think you have confused a mans name, that just happens to mean rock, with what the scripture is really saying

if peter was the first pope, why did the rest of the popes not follow his example? no pope (that i know of) has lived the life style that peter lived... yeah that's a tuff one for ya i know

i know most of these have been brought up already but anyway...........

peter was married, very unpope like

paul openly opposed him, somebody should have told paul about peter being the first pope

if peter was pope he was out of position as head of the church

peter didn't even know he was pope ... in 1 peter 5:1 he states that he is simply a fellow elder

in acts 8:14, peter & john were sent to samaria ... whooops very unpope like

if peter was the pope it seems he would have written most of the NT ... not so

peter NEVER mentioned mary in either of his two books of the new testament nor did he mention the sacraments, church membership, attending mass, praying the Rosary, or any other things of such nature, as having any role in salvation at all

we can conclude that IF peter was INDEED the first pope.........THE REST MUST BE FAKE!!!!!!

it's like comparing a ground hog to a prarie chicken ... in other to totally different animals