Church is built onto Peter? Matthew 16:18-19
-
My respond to Honeybunz
Contextual Read
Chp 16 v1 - 20 [Amplified Version]
1 NOW THE Pharisees and Sadducees came up to Jesus, and they asked Him to show them a sign (spectacular miracle) from heaven [attesting His divine authority].
2 He replied to them, When it is evening you say, It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,
3 And in the morning, It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and has a gloomy and threatening look. You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.
4 A wicked and morally unfaithful generation craves a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. Then He left them and went away.
5 When the disciples reached the other side of the sea, they found that they had forgotten to bring any bread.
6 Jesus said to them, Be careful and on your guard against the leaven (ferment) of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
7 And they reasoned among themselves about it, saying, It is because we did not bring any bread.
8 But Jesus, aware of this, asked, Why are you discussing among yourselves the fact that you have no bread? O you [men, how little trust you have in Me, how] little faith!
9 Do you not yet discern (perceive and understand)? Do you not remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many [small hand] baskets you gathered?
10 Nor the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many [large provision] baskets you took up?
11 How is it that you fail to understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But beware of the leaven (ferment) of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
12 Then they discerned that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
13 Now when Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, Who do people say that the Son of Man is?
14 And they answered, Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.
15 He said to them, But who do you [yourselves] say that I am?
16 Simon Peter replied, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 Then Jesus answered him, Blessed (happy, fortunate, and to be envied) are you, Simon Bar-Jonah. For flesh and blood [men] have not revealed this to you, but My Father Who is in heaven.
18 And I tell you, you are Peter [Greek, Petros--a large piece of rock], and on this rock [Greek, petra--a huge rock like Gibraltar] I will build My church, and the gates of Hades (the powers of the infernal region) shall not overpower it [or be strong to its detriment or hold out against it].
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind (declare to be improper and unlawful) on earth must be what is already bound in heaven; and whatever you loose (declare lawful) on earth must be what is already loosed in heaven.
20 Then He sternly and strictly charged and warned the disciples to tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.
_____________________________________
Matthew 16:18 - As Key Subject
18 And I tell you, you are [1]Peter [Greek, Petros--a large piece of rock], and on this [2]rock [Greek, petra--a huge rock like Gibraltar] I will build My [3]church, and the gates of Hades (the powers of the infernal region) shall not overpower it [or be strong to its detriment or hold out against it].
References
John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
Mt 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
Mt 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
Lu 6:48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.
1 Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
1 Co 3:11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Sub reference
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
____________________________________ -
Greek Definitions
[1]
Strong's Number: 4074
Original Word
Pevtroß
pet'-ros
Noun Masculine
Definition: Peter = "a rock or a stone"
1. one of the twelve disciples of Jesus
[2]
Strong's Number: 4073
Original Word
pevtra
Petra
Noun Feminine
Definition: 1. a rock, cliff or ledge
1. a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground
2. a rock, a large stone
3. metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul
[3]
Strong's Number: 1577
Original Word
ejkklhsiva
Ekklesia
ek-klay-see'-ah
Noun Feminine
Definition: 1. a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
1. an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
2. the assembly of the Israelites
3. any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
4. in a Christian sense
1. an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
2. a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake
3. those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
4. the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
5. the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven -
Firstly, i present my claims not to challenge the authorities of Catholicism and their beliefs.
Though i come to realise that Catholics are especially interested in these topics regarding history of Church, Bishops, Pope, Politics. All these are just my personal opinions.
Second, there is no desire of me to question the 'authorities' which endorse what Honeybunz have stated.
My question is like i've asked Icemoon in another thread regarding apologetics.
Because the websites and internet and books stated it's claims using Matt 16:18 as a key verse.
You believe it wholly?
Again my challenge is not against Church history. My problem is with the interpretation of Matt 16:18. It is flawed which will bring fourth my third reason below.
Honeybunz: Your belief is built on history and other materials to support the claims.
My belief is built on the word and by interpretations.
If this discussion doesn't work out to recieve any edification in the end. I think it is pointless to continue any further, just because both of us wants to prove if Peter is indeed(or isn't) the rock which Christ Jesus built upon.
Third and lastly, I wish to ask.
From Matt 16:18
Who is the Rock? Peter or Christ or unknown???
______________________________________
Matthew 16:19 - As key subject
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind (declare to be improper and unlawful) on earth must be what is already bound in heaven; and whatever you loose (declare lawful) on earth must be what is already loosed in heaven.
References
Rev 17 When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. He laid His right hand on me, and said, "Don't be afraid! I am the First and the Last,
18 and the Living One. I was dead, but look--I am alive forever and ever, and I hold the keys of death and Hades.
Matt 18:18 I assure you: Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven.
________________________________________
In contextwise, Peter spoke a revelation which he himself did not understand. However, the faith and revelation he demostrated was indeed the basis of faith in which '16 Simon Peter replied, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 Then Jesus answered him, Blessed (happy, fortunate, and to be envied) are you, Simon Bar-Jonah. For flesh and blood [men] have not revealed this to you, but My Father Who is in heaven.' every believers should embrace. Here is a confession of the Christian faith, addressed to Christ, and so made an act of devotion.
Here is a confession of the Christian faith, addressed to Christ, and so made an act of devotion.
The materials and workmanship are his. By the working of his Spirit with the preaching of his word he adds souls to his church, and so builds it up with living stones,
1 Peter 2:5. Ye are God’s building; and building is a progressive work; the church in this world is but in fieri—in the forming, like a house in the building. It is a comfort to all those who wish well to the church, that Christ, who has divine wisdom and power, undertakes to build it. The foundation on which it is built is, this Rock.
verse 18 should not be taken literally, it should be interpreted with insight of spiritual and symbolic meaning.
"Thou art Peter, thou hast the name of a stone, but upon this rock, pointing to himself, I will build my church.Â’Â’ - 1 Co 3:11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Jesus used 'Petros' as a symbol of His church's foundation. Symbolically, He(Jesus) didn't mean Peter as foundation, He didn't authorize Peter as the Head/pope/bishop of the first or subsequent Church. He referred to Himself - The Firm Foundation.
What then is the ultimate foundation of the trust and confidence placed on if Christ is not the rock and foundation of His Church?
This foundation is firm, strong, everlasting, time will not waste, nor will it sink under the weight of the building.
Christ would not build his house upon the sand, for he knew that storms would arise. A rock is high, Ps. 61:2
Who would claim 'I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.' other than the Christ, son of the living God?
However, Peter did led the 'keys of Knowledge' - of Salvation through Jesus Christ and the proclaimation that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah. To the Jews then the Gentiles. - Book of Acts
___________________________________
Regarding Matt 16:19
Christ spoke to all 12 apostles attending likewise he referred the 'petros in verse 18' to all 12.
The power here delegated is a spiritual power; it is a power pertaining to the kingdom of heaven,
Now the keys of the kingdom of heaven are, The key of doctrine, called the key of knowledge.
Which the apostles are delegated to standfast the integrity of the Teachings, theology and philosophy of Christianity.
in the common speech of the Jews, at that time, signified to prohibit and permit; to teach or declare a thing to be unlawful was to bind; to be lawful, was to loose. Which in matters of the Epistles' letters will reveal.
This verse was frequently used by preachers for the issue on 'authority of Prayer' or 'Power of Authority' etc.
Cheers -
You can't say the Church is built onto Peter 'cosOriginally posted by Honeybunz:Then prove to me that the Church is not built onto Peter, while I continue to prove that Peter is the first head of church.
1. Peter wasn't even recognised as the boss from the very beginning. He may be Chief Disciple, but that's about it. Even the apostle Paul dared to rebuke him. Where was his authority, you tell me?
2. The office of the Bishop of Rome was not recognised to be supreme from the very beginning .Heck, the office wasn't even established until, you claimed, after AD 70.
3. Even if the office was established, I think (need to check with you) the other bishops from cities like Alexandria and Antioch did not really recognise him as supreme. During the Council of Nicea and Chalcedon, how strong was this bishop of Rome? -
This, luckily for you, is the situation today - the two giant denominations are almost universal in their teachings.Originally posted by Honeybunz:Considering these two giant denominations have historical evidence and probably archaeological to link back to the Apostles' Time and both their teachings are almost 100% similar, how wrong can Catholic Church goes?
But flash back 2000 years ago - orthodox christians fought theological battles with heretics. No one believed in Papal infallibilty I suppose. Or else councils would not be convened to settle theological disputes? -
Again the claims which HB posted are based on Catholic strength and assumptions.Originally posted by Icemoon:This, luckily for you, is the situation today - the two giant denominations are almost universal in their teachings.
But flash back 2000 years ago - orthodox christians fought theological battles with heretics. No one believed in Papal infallibilty I suppose. Or else councils would not be convened to settle theological disputes? -
Guys and gals... why bother???? Like not hot enough in EH already...
-
I also don't know why i bother....but i'm especially sensitive to misquotation of scriptures.Originally posted by Chin Eng:Guys and gals... why bother???? Like not hot enough in EH already...
Rest assure it'll not go beyond two page.
Now, it depends Honeybunz wish to continue defending her stand.
Cheers -
Wah... so many things after one day of not logging in....
give me some time to rest, can?
Have to recharge my battery first.... In the meantime, have fun. -
Sure if you say so. Take your time.Originally posted by Honeybunz:Wah... so many things after one day of not logging in....
give me some time to rest, can?
Have to recharge my battery first.... In the meantime, have fun.
-
Personally, the important thing to draw from Peter's story is that God can still use you even after you rejected Him. Peter rejected Christ thrice but repented. Peter wasn't able to deny himself to let go of the fear being persecuted. He didn't believe that Christ needs to be crucified in order for salvation to be completed. It was after he realised that taking up the cross means much more than listening to the Word that he repented. Only when you listen, obey and perservere then your service to God will overflow.
-
It is important is understand the history in order to understand why today the Church teaches certain topic in certain way. Is it a newly invented interpretion of the bible or has it been traditionally taught that way? History plays an important part. History and politics will also tell you how certain teachings or interpretion might have been distorted. You see, we only have that many books in the NT. There are many questions, eg Icemoon's question on the few impt cities, which the NT cannot explain.
It is just like why we have to know the culture in Jesus day in order to understand why it is so significant to mention Jesus talking to a Samaritan woman and a Caanite woman.
Not understanding the history and tradition of the church will only result in wrong interpretion of the bible. This is exactly what resulted in many cults being form during the last two centuries. Eg. Jehovah Witness. Did they ignore the church history? yes. Did they rely solely on the bible and they started off with a bible study class by a group of Protestant . Yes (which I think nothing wrong with this, except... see my last question). Did they have wrong interpretion in the bible? Yes.
The bible only records events happened during that period. Anything that it doesn't mention, you will have to count on history and tradition. For example, where in the bible do you find the word Holy Trinity? It isn't mentioned. So can we say that the two words are wrong? Other words that are not mentioned in the bible and yet Christians have always been using : "Incarnation,"; "Ascension," and "Bible".
Also, why Christians get married in Church? Why in the bible did anybody say we can do that? Nowhere. So is it wrong? So how do we know more about Christian marriage???
It is of course very convenient to ignore the history. Less things to teach. Also to hide the fact which is the original church. It is also easy for ppl to come out with own new interpretion of the bible.
Another reason for me to highlight the history is because Catholic Church is the only Christian Church that goes back in history to the time of Christ. Even historians can prove that. If I use Catholic writings in my arguments, firstly, you may not understand, and 2ndly, it might be seen by some other ppl as a "Catholic conspiracy".
Regarding whether Peter was the leader, you can see very clearly every time the disciples assembled in council (Acts 1:15, 5:1-10), and they placed his name first every time they listed the names of the Apostles. (Matt. 10:2, Mark 3:16, Luke 6:13-14, Acts 1:13).
In addition, there is the testimony of the Church Fathers. In the second century St. Hegessipus compiled a list of Popes to the time of Anicetus (eleventh Pope) which contained the name of St. Peter as first. Early in the third century the historian Caius wrote that Pope Victor was "the thirteenth Bishop of Rome from Peter." In the middle of the third century St. Cyprian related that Cornelius (twenty-first Pope) "mounted the lofty summit of the priesthood...the place of Peter." Even Protestant historians have attested to Peter's role as first Bishop of Rome, first pope of the Catholic Church. Wrote the eminent Protestant historian Cave in his Historia Litiraria: "That Peter was at Rome, and held the See there for some time, we fearlessly affirm with the whole multitude of the ancients." Hence the source of the Pope's authority to rule over the Catholic Church is quite obvious: It was given him by none other than Jesus Christ, by God Himself.
The Lord saying: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona...Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build by church." (Matt. 16:17-19). "There shall be one fold and one shepherd." (John 10:16). "Feed my lambs...feed my sheep." (John 21:15-17). The words "rock" and "shepherd." (John 10:16). "Feed my lambsÂ…feed my sheep." (John 21:15-17). The words "rock" and "shepherd" must apply to Peter, and they must distinguish him as the head Apostle, otherwise Christ's statements are so ambiguous as to be meaningless.
Yes, true that a few ppl were mentiond arguing with Peter. Does that mean that he was not a leader? Ppl do argue. Even in today's church, there bound to be ppl disagreeing with one another. Even Martin Luther and John Calvin argued before.
"THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is the world's largest, and Christianity's oldest, religious body. Her 1 billion members inhabit the width and breadth of the earth, comprising almost one-fifth of the total human population. She is far and away the most popular religious concept the world has ever known. Paradoxically, however, the Catholic Church is also the world's most controversial religious concept. Catholic belief is different, too different to be orthodox, say Protestants and Christian cultists. Catholic belief is too ethereal to be logical, and too strict to be enjoyable, say the humanists and agnostics. Hence to millions of people, Catholicism is not only a colossal success, it is also a colossal enigma. Of course, there has to be an explanation for these contradictory opinions -- and there is an explanation: Protestants and others who have questions about Catholic belief too often make the mistake of going to the wrong place for the answers. Too often books written by religious incompetents are consulted. The result is incomplete and distorted information. With such information, one cannot help but see the Catholic faith as a colossal enigma.
The right place to go for information about Catholic belief -- in fact the only place to go for complete and authoritative information -- is the Catholic Church herself. As any detective will tell you, no investigation is quite so complete as an on-the-spot investigation. Hence, dear reader, if you are a Protestant, an unaffiliated Christian, or an agnostic, who wants to know the truth about Catholic belief, take this friendly advice: Seek out a Catholic priest and put your questions to him. You will find him a very understanding and obliging person. Or read this little booklet. This booklet was written by a Catholic who knows the questions you are likely to ask, as well as the answers, because once he, too, was outside of the Catholic Church, looking in. The questions in this booklet are basically the same ones he put to a Catholic priest, and the answers are basically the same ones given him by that priest. Read this booklet; then forget all the fiction you have heard about the Catholic Church, for you will have the gospel truth. " - Paul Whitcomb, a former Methodist Pastor in USA -
Fandango was the one who started it. Actually it is sooo unnecessary.Originally posted by Chin Eng:Guys and gals... why bother???? Like not hot enough in EH already...
Now he pressed his mute button
I being an ex Protestant still love all my Protestant friends.
Catholics today call the Protestants - our seperated brothers and sisters. I would rather see the similarities, rather than the difference. Going thru "history lesson" here is really no fun for me at all cuz history has always been my worst subject ... hiak! -
Yes. God always makes use of sinful people to do great things.Originally posted by sillyme:Personally, the important thing to draw from Peter's story is that God can still use you even after you rejected Him. Peter rejected Christ thrice but repented. Peter wasn't able to deny himself to let go of the fear being persecuted. He didn't believe that Christ needs to be crucified in order for salvation to be completed. It was after he realised that taking up the cross means much more than listening to the Word that he repented. Only when you listen, obey and perservere then your service to God will overflow. -
You have taken the verse completely out of context. The shepherd was not a reference to the Apostle Peter. The shepherd is Jesus Christ. Please read the Bible carefully. This is what Jesus said,Originally posted by Honeybunz:"There shall be one fold and one shepherd." (John 10:16).
"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me-- just as the Father knows me and I know the Father--and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd."
Please note carefully what Jesus said. He said, "feed MY sheep," not "feed YOUR sheep." The sheep still belongs to Jesus. Jesus is still the shepherd.Originally posted by Honeybunz:"Feed my lambs...feed my sheep." (John 21:15-17).
There are other verses where the Shepherd explicitly refers to Jesus Christ:- [*]"May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep." (Hebrews 13:20)
[*]"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls." (1 Peter 2:24-25)
What do we know from this?- [*]The Apostle Peter is asking the overseers to be shepherds over God's flock, just as Jesus asked Peter to be a shepherd over God's flock. Therefore, Peter is not the only shepherd.
[*]The Greek word for "lording it over" is katakurieuo, which means to "control, subjugate: - exercise dominion over (lordship), be lord over, overcome." No earthly shepherd of Christ is supposed to be exercising control over God's flock, i.e. the church.
[*]Jesus Christ is the Chief Shepherd of the church. -
Even though the Bible did not mention the word "Trinity," the concept of the Trinity is found in the Bible. The Christians simply coined a theological term to define that concept. The teachings for those theological concepts like "Incarnation," "Ascension" are all in the Bible. They are just collective terms.Originally posted by Honeybunz:The bible only records events happened during that period. Anything that it doesn't mention, you will have to count on history and tradition. For example, where in the bible do you find the word Holy Trinity? It isn't mentioned. So can we say that the two words are wrong? Other words that are not mentioned in the bible and yet Christians have always been using : "Incarnation,"; "Ascension," and "Bible".
Furthermore, it is written that the Scriptures alone are sufficient for salvation.- [*]"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." (2 Timothy 3:14-15)
[*]"All Scripture is Godbreathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." -
Indeed, i find no point in further questioning the authenticity of Matt 16:18,19 of topic stated above.Originally posted by Honeybunz:It is important is understand the history in order to understand why today the Church teaches certain topic in certain way. Is it a newly invented interpretion of the bible or has it been traditionally taught that way? History plays an important part. History and politics will also tell you how certain teachings or interpretion might have been distorted. You see, we only have that many books in the NT. There are many questions, eg Icemoon's question on the few impt cities, which the NT cannot explain.
It is just like why we have to know the culture in Jesus day in order to understand why it is so significant to mention Jesus talking to a Samaritan woman and a Caanite woman.
Not understanding the history and tradition of the church will only result in wrong interpretion of the bible. This is exactly what resulted in many cults being form during the last two centuries. Eg. Jehovah Witness. Did they ignore the church history? yes. Did they rely solely on the bible and they started off with a bible study class by a group of Protestant . Yes (which I think nothing wrong with this, except... see my last question). Did they have wrong interpretion in the bible? Yes.
The bible only records events happened during that period. Anything that it doesn't mention, you will have to count on history and tradition. For example, where in the bible do you find the word Holy Trinity? It isn't mentioned. So can we say that the two words are wrong? Other words that are not mentioned in the bible and yet Christians have always been using : "Incarnation,"; "Ascension," and "Bible".
Also, why Christians get married in Church? Why in the bible did anybody say we can do that? Nowhere. So is it wrong? So how do we know more about Christian marriage???
It is of course very convenient to ignore the history. Less things to teach. Also to hide the fact which is the original church. It is also easy for ppl to come out with own new interpretion of the bible.
___________________________________________
I am not interested in discussing what is not written in the bible.
There are too many issue to be questioned which will led to smacking ourselves on our own faces.
Those were allowed by early apostles and church father, traditions which was passed on. Traditions which were created by man to facilitate the function of church.
I am not interested in these discussions. There are too much to discuss.It's not convenient to ignore, but do you have full comprehension of early ages of church too? Do you claim to have grasp the account of church history from Acts till to date?
If you do, i would love to meet up for a EH outing and we'll discuss/learn on this face to face.
___________________________________________
Another reason for me to highlight the history is because Catholic Church is the only Christian Church that goes back in history to the time of Christ. Even historians can prove that. If I use Catholic writings in my arguments, firstly, you may not understand, and 2ndly, it might be seen by some other ppl as a "Catholic conspiracy".
Regarding whether Peter was the leader, you can see very clearly every time the disciples assembled in council (Acts 1:15, 5:1-10), and they placed his name first every time they listed the names of the Apostles. (Matt. 10:2, Mark 3:16, Luke 6:13-14, Acts 1:13).
In addition, there is the testimony of the Church Fathers. In the second century St. Hegessipus compiled a list of Popes to the time of Anicetus (eleventh Pope) which contained the name of St. Peter as first. Early in the third century the historian Caius wrote that Pope Victor was "the thirteenth Bishop of Rome from Peter." In the middle of the third century St. Cyprian related that Cornelius (twenty-first Pope) "mounted the lofty summit of the priesthood...the place of Peter." Even Protestant historians have attested to Peter's role as first Bishop of Rome, first pope of the Catholic Church. Wrote the eminent Protestant historian Cave in his Historia Litiraria: "That Peter was at Rome, and held the See there for some time, we fearlessly affirm with the whole multitude of the ancients." Hence the source of the Pope's authority to rule over the Catholic Church is quite obvious: It was given him by none other than Jesus Christ, by God Himself.
The Lord saying: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona...Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build by church." (Matt. 16:17-19). "There shall be one fold and one shepherd." (John 10:16). "Feed my lambs...feed my sheep." (John 21:15-17). The words "rock" and "shepherd." (John 10:16). "Feed my lambsÂ…feed my sheep." (John 21:15-17). The words "rock" and "shepherd" must apply to Peter, and they must distinguish him as the head Apostle, otherwise Christ's statements are so ambiguous as to be meaningless.
______________________________
In my respect of Apostle Peter and scripture which i read.
I have absolutely no doubt if anyone would say Apostle Peter is the Leader of the Twelve.
However, my presentation is not to prove if he is or not the Head/Leader.
My presentation is as of First posted. My question isn't answered again. Allow me to recap: Church is built onto Peter? according to Matthew 16:18-19
Who is the Rock? Peter or Christ or unknown???
______________________________
Yes, true that a few ppl were mentiond arguing with Peter. Does that mean that he was not a leader? Ppl do argue. Even in today's church, there bound to be ppl disagreeing with one another. Even Martin Luther and John Calvin argued before.
"THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is the world's largest, and Christianity's oldest, religious body. Her 1 billion members inhabit the width and breadth of the earth, comprising almost one-fifth of the total human population. She is far and away the most popular religious concept the world has ever known. Paradoxically, however, the Catholic Church is also the world's most controversial religious concept. Catholic belief is different, too different to be orthodox, say Protestants and Christian cultists. Catholic belief is too ethereal to be logical, and too strict to be enjoyable, say the humanists and agnostics. Hence to millions of people, Catholicism is not only a colossal success, it is also a colossal enigma. Of course, there has to be an explanation for these contradictory opinions -- and there is an explanation: Protestants and others who have questions about Catholic belief too often make the mistake of going to the wrong place for the answers. Too often books written by religious incompetents are consulted. The result is incomplete and distorted information. With such information, one cannot help but see the Catholic faith as a colossal enigma.
The right place to go for information about Catholic belief -- in fact the only place to go for complete and authoritative information -- is the Catholic Church herself. As any detective will tell you, no investigation is quite so complete as an on-the-spot investigation. Hence, dear reader, if you are a Protestant, an unaffiliated Christian, or an agnostic, who wants to know the truth about Catholic belief, take this friendly advice: Seek out a Catholic priest and put your questions to him. You will find him a very understanding and obliging person. Or read this little booklet. This booklet was written by a Catholic who knows the questions you are likely to ask, as well as the answers, because once he, too, was outside of the Catholic Church, looking in. The questions in this booklet are basically the same ones he put to a Catholic priest, and the answers are basically the same ones given him by that priest. Read this booklet; then forget all the fiction you have heard about the Catholic Church, for you will have the gospel truth. " - Paul Whitcomb, a former Methodist Pastor in USA
My reply weren't even answered thru solid bible study based.
Simply by knowing the significance of historical details and what the early church fathers wrote about the characters of the bible, does not mean it shall stand with the scriptures.
It was also thru History and Politics that the scriptures were distorted - there is always two sides of the coin.
Not understanding history and politics of Church(RC) will only result in ignorance, less knowledge.
Nowhere in the scriptures did Paul, Peter, James, Jude in their letters exhort anyone who believes in Jesus as the Son of the Living God should and have to arm themselves with knowledge of church history and politics in order not to drift away from the meanings of scriptures nor prevent themselves from wrong interpretation.
I'll end with this question.
How will understanding Church politics and it's history prevent me from drifting away from the right interpretation of scriptures? What qualifies me to interprete the scriptures.
When in the scripture,
it was said that 'so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. Romans 8:4
I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit.
Romans 9:1
To me, the answer lies in the Counsel of Holy Spirit. Not history or politics of Church.
Cheers -
I somehow sensed that the answer i get won't be a scripture based answer.
theoronin: Good biblical presentation. -
What was the difference between the Bereans and the Thessalonians? Was it that the Bereans examined the Scriptures and the Thessalonians didnÂ’t? No.Originally posted by theoronin:When the Apostle Paul preached to the Bereans in Acts 17:11, how did the Bereans validate Paul's teachings? Through traditions? Definitely not! They "examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."
Paul spent three weeks debating the Scriptures with the Jews in Thessalonica. Obviously, they were examining the Scriptures too, but they were closed-minded, and hostile to Paul’s message. The Bereans, on the other hand, “received the message with great eagerness”; they were so excited that they examined the Scriptures “every day,” not just on the Sabbath. They were eager to believe Paul’s message, and ready to accept it if it were true. That is why they were said to be of more noble character than the Thessalonians.
The Bereans examined the Scriptures because Paul was attempting to prove that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament messianic prophecies. He was trying to prove that the Scriptures foretold that “the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead”; that was his whole message. So naturally the Bereans checked the Old Testament Scriptures to see for themselves whether they really said those things about the Christ.
Does this mean that Scripture is enough for Christians? No. Let us take note that neither the Bereans nor the Thessalonians were Christians. They were Hellenistic Jews. This whole passage is about how Paul dealt with potential converts from Judaism by appealing to the Old Testament messianic prophecies. It has nothing to do with whether Christians must rely on the Bible alone. -
Thanks M©+squareOriginally posted by M©+square:theoronin: Good biblical presentation.
On Acts 1:15Originally posted by Honeybunz:Regarding whether Peter was the leader, you can see very clearly every time the disciples assembled in council (Acts 1:15, 5:1-10), and they placed his name first every time they listed the names of the Apostles. (Matt. 10:2, Mark 3:16, Luke 6:13-14, Acts 1:13).
"In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty)"
Take note the phrase "in those days." The Gospel of Luke was traditionally considered to be written about about 60 AD or 63 AD. The Apostle Peter supposed to have died in 69 AD. That means Peter was not "standing up among the believers" at the time the Gospel of Luke was written.
Another instance where the phrase "in those days" appeared is in Acts 6:1. It is written: "In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food." Therefore, as you can see from this verse, this phrase denotes a unique point of time in history. The problem of the widows might not be happening during the writing of the Gospel, but it was certainly happening "in those days."
Lastly, most importantly, there is no proof from this verse that Peter was appointed by the believer as a leader. The phrase "stood up" in Greek is anistemi, which appears in verses like Luke 10:25 and Acts 5:34.- [*]"On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. 'Teacher,' he asked, 'what must I do to inherit eternal life?'" (Luke 10:25)
[*]"But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while." (Acts 5:34)
On Acts 5:1-10
This is a Biblical account of Ananias and Sapphira. There is no indication in the Scriptural passage that suggest Peter is the leader of the apostles. Spokesman maybe, leader no. In verse 2, Ananias "kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet." Please note the plural phrase "apostles' feet," not Peter's feet. -
Certainly nobody is going to argue that Peter took over Christ's position in the Church. They are both totally different. Peter is just a servant looking after the Church, while Christ is still the centre of Christianity. But every group will have a leader. If Christ let the group go on without a head, what is going to happen? Everyone will have his own way of running things, and thus everyone will have his own way of interpreting the bible.Originally posted by theoronin:Please note carefully what Jesus said. He said, "feed MY sheep," not "feed YOUR sheep." The sheep still belongs to Jesus. Jesus is still the shepherd.
There are other verses where the Shepherd explicitly refers to Jesus Christ:- [*]"May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep." (Hebrews 13:20)
[*]"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls." (1 Peter 2:24-25)
What do we know from this?- [*]The Apostle Peter is asking the overseers to be shepherds over God's flock, just as Jesus asked Peter to be a shepherd over God's flock. Therefore, Peter is not the only shepherd.
[*]The Greek word for "lording it over" is katakurieuo, which means to "control, subjugate: - exercise dominion over (lordship), be lord over, overcome." No earthly shepherd of Christ is supposed to be exercising control over God's flock, i.e. the church.
[*]Jesus Christ is the Chief Shepherd of the church.
Christ only talked to Peter alone when he said "Feed my sheep ... my lambs". He wouldn't be telling more than 1 person to be the head. What's going to happen if he did? Well, the different heads will be arguing with one another day to day, won't it? Already with Peter as the head, there were a bit of arguments.
But of course, I don't mean Peter was the only one running everything. He had 11 other apostles assisting him, just like today we have 1 Pope and several Cardinals. Or in the case of a Protestant Church, is 1 Head Pastor, and several bible study teachers. -
Yes, Jesus did talk about him being the Cornerstone. But they were parables for His other teachings. He appointing Peter is not a teaching. It was a command. It is just like you can't put the story of Moses being told to write the 10 commandments with the story of Adam and Eve.Originally posted by M©+square:I somehow sensed that the answer i get won't be a scripture based answer.
theoronin: Good biblical presentation.
Also, based on "Peter is the stone, not the Rock" interpretion, the sentence will be:
"Simon Peter, you are the stone. I will build my church onto me."
This sound completely meaningless and ambigious, regardless of what language you translate to. The two sentences were totally not linked in any way. Even if you read everything non literally, probably symbolically, there is no way that putting the two sentences together going to make any sense. They are in fact about two issues, two different issues. But why were they said in one line and not two different dialogue or written in two paragraphs.
Also what has the little stone got to do with the Rock? The stone doesn't support the Rock and vice versa. How does putting these two totally non related together, other than they are both from the nature. But in the case, I don't think Jesus is talking about natures.
However, based on the "Peter is the Rock" version, the sentence means:
"Simon, you are the Rock. And I will build my church on you the Rock."
Regardless of what language this is said in, it still means the same.
This is a very simple paragraph in the bible. There is no need to go into solid bible study. Going deeper into it will only lead to confusion and thus result in many different kinds of interpretions. Why go so deep to understand it, when the ppl of nearly two thousand years ago had already done so for you?
Do you know that it is because ppl today try to go too deep into bible study in hope of finding new teachings that have not been discovered by the Church, that they end up coming up with all sorts of teachings and even claim to be able to predict when the world is ending.
I am not telling you to be lazy. But to let you know that this part of the bible has already been understood, interpreted and taught in the church for nearly two thousand years. So why come up with a different meaning?
As you can see that the Catholic Church has been the original church. Can they be wrong in this? If they are wrong, then none of us will be right today, you & I inclusive.
The reason why I stress so much on the history is to tell everyone that this is the original church. So there is no need to come up with new teachings to counter them.
In case my reasoning of knowing church history is not enough or clear, following the original church's teaching will lead you no more wrong than reading the bible yourself, thinking that you're in the counsel of the Holy Spirit. The early church has already been inspired by the Holy Spirit when they penned down the teachings and bible interpretion. So it is unnecessary to get Holy Spirit to inspire us to come out with a different way of understanding bible, esp if it is going to differs from the early teachings. Don't forget how the cult groups were formed. Their founders all claimed to be inspired or have seen God or angels, after they pray.
And also by understanding what happened in the history, it further explains why some teachers taught this part the way they do.
Simple and straightforward reasons :
If Peter was not the Rock, they can further argue that Peter was not the first leader of the church.
If Peter was not the first leader or leader of the Apostles, then there is no way for the Catholics or any successors of Peter to claim that their church goes back to the time of Christ. The Catholic Church will not be the original church in this case.
What if the Catholic Church is proven to be the original church?
Some believers will find their way to the Catholic Church because they want to find the root of the faith, be in the church that Christ Himself has founded or be in a church with a deeper and longer foundation.
This is something that many non Catholics do not want to see. -
Nope, I disagree. There is clearly no indication that the Thessalonians were examining the Scriptures like the Bereans did. In fact, Acts 17:11 shows the opposite.Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:What was the difference between the Bereans and the Thessalonians? Was it that the Bereans examined the Scriptures and the Thessalonians didnÂ’t? No.
Paul spent three weeks debating the Scriptures with the Jews in Thessalonica. Obviously, they were examining the Scriptures too, but they were closed-minded, and hostile to PaulÂ’s message.
Acts 17:11 states: "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."
Read this verse carefully. What separates the Bereans from the Thessalonians? The Bereans were of "more noble character." What was the result of that noble character? The result was that the Bereans "received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."
Please refer to 1 Thessalonians 2:13, which states: "And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe." This verse reinforce the fact that the Thesslonians receive the gospel message with a childlike faith, without carefully examining the Scriptures like the Bereans.
By the way, 1 Thessalonians 2:13 also shows that the Apostle Paul wasn't simply trying to "prove that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament messianic prophecies." Paul was preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ.
In 1 Thessalonians 3:5, Paul sent Timothy, a Christian who knows the Scriptures very well and was capable of "command(ing) certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer" (1 Timothy 1:3), to go to the Thessalonians to "strengthen and encourage" them in their faith (1 Thessalonians 3:2). Paul's act in sending Timothy, shows his concern over their study of the Scriptures.
And lastly, Paul ended the the first epistle to the Thessalonians with this verse: "Test everything. Hold on to the good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21) This shows Paul's concern over the Thessalonians who neglect testing the words of men against the Scriptures.
You are assuming without basis that Paul was simply "appealing to the Old Testament messianic prophecies." Don't forget, Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 3:15 that "the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation." Since salvation is through the message of the gospel, it also means that the entire contents of the gospel is found in the Scriptures. Therefore, Paul was actually preaching the gospel to the Thessalonians and the Bereans, which can be found in the Scriptures alone.Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:Does this mean that Scripture is enough for Christians? No. Let us take note that neither the Bereans nor the Thessalonians were Christians. They were Hellenistic Jews. This whole passage is about how Paul dealt with potential converts from Judaism by appealing to the Old Testament messianic prophecies. It has nothing to do with whether Christians must rely on the Bible alone. -
Jesus only referred to the Apostle Paul alone when he said these words to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."Originally posted by Honeybunz:Christ only talked to Peter alone when he said "Feed my sheep ... my lambs". He wouldn't be telling more than 1 person to be the head. What's going to happen if he did? Well, the different heads will be arguing with one another day to day, won't it? Already with Peter as the head, there were a bit of arguments.
According to your "logic," does this mean:- [*]Paul is the only person Jesus has chosen to carry His name to the Gentiles?
[*]Paul is the only person Jesus has chosen to carry His name to the people of Israel?
"In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil." (Hebrews 5:12-14)
As anyone can see, Jesus speaking to Peter alone does not prove that Peter is the only one who could feed God's flock. Neither does it indicate that Peter is appointed as the head of the church. There can only be one head. "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior." (Ephesians 5:23) -
Nowhere in the Bible does it imply that Peter is in charge of interpreting the Scriptures for every Christian, whether directly or indirectly. In 2 Timothy 2:15, Paul wrote to Timothy, "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth."Originally posted by Honeybunz:Certainly nobody is going to argue that Peter took over Christ's position in the Church. They are both totally different. Peter is just a servant looking after the Church, while Christ is still the centre of Christianity. But every group will have a leader. If Christ let the group go on without a head, what is going to happen? Everyone will have his own way of running things, and thus everyone will have his own way of interpreting the bible.
Now if Peter was in charge of the interpretation of Scriptures, Paul would have asked Timothy to refer to Peter whenever he reads the Bible. However, as we can see, this verse shows us that Timothy was perfectly capable of handling (i.e. interpreting) the Word of God all by his own.
1 Peter 2:1 states: "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves."
If Peter was really recognized by the early church as its head, he would not have encountered the problem shown in 1 Peter 2:1. Every Christian would be following his Biblical interpretations instead of the false prophets and teachers' interpretations. Every Christian would be looking to him as the head instead of the false teachers. Therefore, this verse proved that Peter had no control over the Biblical interpretations of the early churches.
1 Corinthians 1:12-13 also mentioned the problem of following men: "What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas (Peter)"; still another, "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?"
If Peter was the head of the church, Paul would not have wrote 1 Corinthians 1:12-13.