Is scripture the highest authority?

[Berean777]

...

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

That part of scripture is not debatable, as I stated Jesus spoke in Aramaic, and Peter in Aramaic is Kephas, which translates literally to rock.

The only scripture that was around during this time was the OT, and it existed in 2 different forms. The Hebrew Bible and the Greek Bible, also called the Septuagint. There was no Bible as we know of it today. Yes Jesus did not mean literal keys, but meant the Power to bind and loose, which had originally been given to the Rabbi by Moses.

Historical Context is needed to fully understand the Bible.

The disciples taught through word of mouth by what they saw or were told, and by the traditions handed down to them by Jesus Himself. Yes they had the OT, but they also had the new teachings and traditions of Jesus which they used to bring people to Him.

Peter's every word after being told that he was the rock was to expound upon how we are a royal priesthood made up of living stones. That was how Peter understood it to mean. I don't know where you get your interpretation from when it's obvios what Peter's is.

 

[Wolf_Says]

Paul is.

No, Paul was never the head of the Catholic Church. That was given solely to Peter in Matthew 16:14-19. Peter was the leader of the disciples, as is shown through-out the gospels "Peter and the disciples"

I asked you to provide proof and explanation. Simply saying "Paul is" means nothing.

I just told you

You told me nothing besides stating that "that scripture is debatable".

 

[Wolf_Says]

Paul's letters to the Romans. Paul an apostle to the gentiles.

Paul is the reason why Rome justified church hierarchy that is modelled after the Pharisical.

I see justification of church hierarchy using Paul but at the same time denying Paul as the head.

Paul is not the reason why Rome picked up Catholicism. Heck, Christianity was an illegal religion well after Paul died. It wasn't made legal until the early 4th century, soon after becoming the religion of the Empire, hence the name Roman Catholic Church. It also has nothing to do with Rome, the head of the Church on earth is found in the Bible, Matthew 16:14-19. It cannot get any clearer than that.

Peter's every word after being told that he was the rock was to expound upon how we are a royal priesthood made up of living stones. That was how Peter understood it to mean. I don't know where you get your interpretation from when it's obvios what Peter's is.

I get my interpretation between a mixture of scripture and historical context. Peter is the head of the Church here on earth, given that gift by Jesus.

What is it that you are confused about?

 

[Berean777]

...

 

[Berean777]

...

 

[Berean777]

...

 

[Berean777]

...

 

[Berean777]

...

 

[Wolf_Says]

In fact the rock theory isn't pointing to Peter as the head but Christ. The words little rock and big Rock is distinguishing Christ as the cornerstone and Peter as a pebble so to speak.

Jesus told Peter, you are a little pebble and on this big Rock whilst Jesus pointed to himself, I will built my church. Notice who is doing the building and who's church it is.

The reason Jesus spoke to Peter the way that he did was to stop the high mindedness of Peter from dreaming off into leadership role. In fact when he tried to make John to follow him, Jesus said what is it to you what will become of John, you Peter are to follow me. Notice the same language is used by Jesus to knock back Peter a couple of notches when Jesus used the small pebble big Rock distinction.

Jesus even spoke to Peter asking him thrice do you love me, to the point where it got on Peter's nerves. The rock theory is nothing more than Jesus pushing Peter's buttons to set him back a couple of notches. It can hardly be interpreted as succession.

Notice Jesus said he is doing the building and it is his church as the head stone.

If that is the case, then why the name change? There is no "rock theory" based on the texted that I provided. I told you the original language and how it translates. Reading the entire text Jesus is blessing Peter. And once again, if the "rock theory" does not add up, then explain why Jesus then gave Peter the keys to heaven and said "whoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."?

Where does it say that Jesus is "pointing to a big rock"? All I see is this "Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare′a Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli′jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”b]">[b] 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”c]">[c] 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter,d]">[d] and on this rocke]">[e] I will build my church, and the powers of deathf]">[f] shall not prevail against it.g]">[g] 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,h]">[h] and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ"

Now you could say "well it was written in Greek, and Peter in Greek is Petros, and the word rock is Petra! Yes, because Petra is a feminine word and needed to be made masculine because it was refering to a man. However, as I said, Jesus spoke in Aramaic, and there is no masculine or feminine difference in Aramaic for the word rock. It is Kephas, which translates to both Peter and rock.

 

[Wolf_Says]

There is no succession friend because once the priesthood was taken from the Pharisical chief priest in the bygone pharisical church system, then it was taken over by the kingly priesthood of melchezedech who is Christ Jesus, the kingly chief priest. This priesthood is not transferable because Christ lives for ever more.

Who ever thinks that the chief priesthood of Christ was up for grabs is dreaming.

Once again, Jesus has always been the chief priest. Why are you so confused? Peter was made the EARTHLY head of Jesus' Church, which has a presence both in Heaven and on Earth. Peter was never the chief priest, and I have never made such a claim.

 

[Berean777]

...

 

[Berean777]

...

 

[Wolf_Says]

Peter was given keys to the kingdom of heaven within the context of the great commission. You and I have the keys and are given access to the Kingdom of heaven.

So you have the power to loose someone on earth and therefore have them loosed in Heaven? I explained what those terms mean so I highly doubt you have the power to kick somebody out and therefore kick them out of Heaven.

I know I do not have that power, nor do I want it.

Honestly, I believe you are confused. I have provided the scripture and the historical context. Please do some research. Jesus is the head of His Church, and gave the responsibility of His earthly Church to Peter. There is no other way to interpret this scripture, it is as clear as day.

 

[Berean777]

...

 

[Berean777]

...

 

[Berean777]

...

 

[Berean777]

...

 

[Wolf_Says]

Now Jesus from telling Peter that God spoke to him in regards to acknowledging him as the Christ to now being the Devil's advocate.

Yes, because it was foretold that the Son of God would be killed. When Peter told Jesus that this would never happen, Jesus gave him a stern warning. Peter was human and prone to sin, just like the rest of us. However that does not take away from what I asked. Why the name change? Why the addition of binding and loosing? Jesus gave no-one the keys other than Peter, otherwise it would have been stated.

Anyone that is a Christian and preaches the gospel and makes disciples of the world is given keys/access to the kingdom of heaven. We are the symbol of the two witnesses, that symbolise the law and the prophets who preach the gospel within the great commission context.

If God wanted the Pharisical system he would have persevered with it. But he got rid of it and gave the keys to his born again sons and daughters to loose and bound.

This part, this is so wrong. Where is the Bible does it state that the Keys to Heaven are handed over to ANYBODY besides Peter? We do not hold the keys, and unless you become Pope you never will. We alone do not find salvation, but through the channels that Jesus had laid down for us. His Church.

The "prophets" are over, and John the baptist was the last prophet. Now there are followers of Christ, because with Christ the OT was fulfilled.

Jesus got rid of the authority of the Rabbis and Pharisees, and gave that authority to Peter and the apostles.

Honestly please stop responding with multiple posts and just keep it to one post. Just makes things cleaner.

The keys to the kingdom of heaven are rights of access and not authority. Peter was never given authority over any disciple let alone John.

Where does it state this in the Bible about the keys? In the exact same passage, Jesus gives Peter the keys to heaven, and the authority to bind and loose. This was not given to all the disciples, just Peter. Jesus gave the power to baptize, forgive sins, and the power of the Holy Spirit to all the disciples, but to Peter alone Jesus gave him the keys and power to bind and loose.

Why do you keep mentioning Paul as if you believe that Paul was wrong? The writings of Paul are also in the Bible, and have been declared divinely inspired by the Catholic Church, who gave the world the Bible in the 4th century.

 

[Berean777]

...