Peter Is Not The Rock!

[TraderJack]

We must pray for those that cannot see.

And exactly who would those be jack?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

And exactly who would those be jack?

Hey! LOOKIE WHO HAS BEEN RESSURECTED BACK!!! Greetings TJ!!!!

 

[Rick Otto]

Catholic Church has no problem with understanding this and for all those that seek the Truth they will find the Catholic Church.

It's true.
We have to learn to take the bad with the good.

 

[TraderJack]

Hey! LOOKIE WHO HAS BEEN RESSURECTED BACK!!! Greetings TJ!!!!

Thanks bro, I hope things are better.

Ifn you know wot I mean.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Thanks bro, I hope things are better.

Ifn you know wot I mean.

Welcome back TJ.

Did Simon get ahold of ya?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Welcome back TJ.

Did Simon get ahold of ya?

Nah.........it was:

Ezekiel 8:3 And He putteth forth a form of a hand and is taking me by a lock of my head, and a spirit she is lifting me between the Land and the Heavens [to CF],

 

[JacktheCatholic]

And exactly who would those be jack?

Those with little faith...

Those that have not been called by the Father...

Those that place themselves ahead of God...

Those that have lost their way...

Those that have rejected God...

There is more, do you want all of the ones I can think of? Or wasn't this the answer you expected?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Nah.........it was:

Ezekiel 8:3 And He putteth forth a form of a hand and is taking me by a lock of my head, and a spirit she is lifting me between the Land and the Heavens [to CF],

Maybe TJ will add a little spice to the GT area?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Those that have not been called by the Father...

Father..........called by........REPENT!!!

Holy Father - Pope Benedict - US Visit.


Pope Benedict XVI First US Visit.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Thoughts about Matthew 16:18


Catholics seem to assume that tracing their denomination to the apostles a) doesn't assume a massive burden of proof and b) somehow makes their specific denomination the "true" one.

The RCC directs us to Matthew 16:18 as "evidence" for all this, but look at the amount of things that need to be proven:

a) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to "Peter."
b) The promise of Mt 16:18 has "exclusive" reference to Peter.
c) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to a Petrine "office."
d) This office is "perpetual"
e) Peter resided in "Rome"
f) Peter was the "bishop" of Rome
g) Peter was the "first" bishop of Rome
h) There was only "one" bishop at a time
i) Peter was not a bishop "anywhere else."
j) Peter "ordained" a successor as the Pope in Rome
k) This ceremony "transferred" his official prerogatives to a successor.
l) The succession has remained "unbroken" up to the present day.



An Eastern Orthodox theologian and apologist wrote the following about this....

Lets review each of these twelve separate steps:

(a) V18 may not even refer to Peter. "We can see that 'Petros' is not the "petra' on which Jesus will build his church…In accord with 7:24, which Matthew quotes here, the 'petra' consists of Jesus' teaching, i.e., the law of Christ. 'This rock' no longer poses the problem that 'this' is ill suits an address to Peter in which he is the rock. For that meaning the text would have read more naturally 'on you.' Instead, the demonstrative echoes 7:24; i.e., 'this rock' echoes 'these my words.' Only Matthew put the demonstrative with Jesus words, which the rock stood for in the following parable (7:24-27). His reusing it in 16:18 points away from Peter to those same words as the foundation of the church…Matthew's Jesus will build only on the firm bedrock of his law (cf. 5:19-20; 28:19), not on the loose stone Peter. Also, we no longer need to explain away the association of the church's foundation with Christ rather than Peter in Mt 21:42," R. Gundry, Matthew (Eerdmans 1994), 334.

(b) Is falsified by the power-sharing arrangement in Mt 18:17-18 & Jn 20:23.

(c) The conception of a Petrine office is borrowed from Roman bureaucratic categories (officium) and read back into this verse. The original promise is indexed to the person of Peter. There is no textual assertion or implication whatsoever to the effect that the promise is separable from the person of Peter.

(d) In 16:18, perpetuity is attributed to the Church, and not to a church office.

(e) There is some evidence that Peter paid a visit to Rome (cf. 1 Pet 5:13). There is some evidence that Peter also paid a visit to Corinth (cf. 1 Cor 1:12; 9:5).

(f) This commits a category mistake. An Apostle is not a bishop. Apostleship is a vocation, not an office, analogous to the prophetic calling. Or, if you prefer, it’s an extraordinary rather than ordinary office.

(g) The original Church of Rome was probably organized by Messianic Jews like Priscilla and Aquilla (cf. Acts 18:2; Rom 16:3). It wasn’t founded by Peter. Rather, it consisted of a number of house-churches (e.g. Rom 16; Hebrews) of Jewish or Gentile membership—or mixed company.

(h) NT polity was plural rather than monarchal. The Catholic claim is predicated on a strategic shift from a plurality of bishops (pastors/elders) presiding over a single (local) church—which was the NT model—to a single bishop presiding over a plurality of churches. And even after you go from (i) oligarchic to (ii) monarchal prelacy, you must then continue from monarchal prelacy to (iii) Roman primacy, from Roman primacy to (iv) papal primacy, and from papal primacy to (v) papal infallibility. So step (h) really breaks down into separate steps—none of which enjoys the slightest exegetical support.

(j) Peter also presided over the Diocese of Pontus-Bithynia (1 Pet 1:1). And according to tradition, Antioch was also a Petrine See (Apostolic Constitutions 7:46.).

(j)-(k) This suffers from at least three objections:
i) These assumptions are devoid of exegetical support. There is no internal warrant for the proposition that Peter ordained any successors.
ii) Even if he had, there is no exegetical evidence that the imposition of hands is identical with Holy Orders.
iii) Even if we went along with that identification, Popes are elected to papal office, they are not ordained to papal office. There is no separate or special sacrament of papal orders as over against priestly orders. If Peter ordained a candidate, that would just make him a pastor (or priest, if you prefer), not a Pope.

(l) This cannot be verified. What is more, events like the Great Schism falsify it in practice, if not in principle.

These are not petty objections. In order to get from Peter to the modern papacy you have to establish every exegetical and historical link in the chain. To my knowledge, I haven’t said anything here that a contemporary Catholic scholar or theologian would necessarily deny. They would simply fallback on a Newmanesque principle of dogmatic development to justify their position. But other issues aside, this admits that there is no straight-line deduction from Mt 16:18 to the papacy. What we have is, at best, a chain of possible inferences. It only takes one broken link anywhere up or down the line to destroy the argument. Moreover, only the very first link has any apparent hook in Mt 16:18. Except for (v), all the rest depend on tradition and dogma. Their traditional support is thin and equivocal while the dogmatic appeal is self-serving.
​

I hope that helps.


Thank you!


Pax!


- Josiah





.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

An Eastern Orthodox theologian and apologist wrote the following about this....

Lets review each of these twelve separate steps:
​

Greetings. Have you seen this site? An Orthodox on the TAW board put it up...I have yet to really go thru this......thoughts?

http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html

The Church Fathers' Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18​

An Historical Refutation of the Claims of Roman Catholicism

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I hope that helps.

Yes, to understand that theology has many facets. It also shows that there is at least one theologian that teaches such.

Thanks!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Thoughts about Matthew 16:18


Catholics seem to assume that tracing their denomination to the apostles a) doesn't assume a massive burden of proof and b) somehow makes their specific denomination the "true" one.

The RCC directs us to Matthew 16:18 as "evidence" for all this, but look at the amount of things that need to be proven:

a) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to "Peter."
b) The promise of Mt 16:18 has "exclusive" reference to Peter.
c) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to a Petrine "office."
d) This office is "perpetual"
e) Peter resided in "Rome"
f) Peter was the "bishop" of Rome
g) Peter was the "first" bishop of Rome
h) There was only "one" bishop at a time
i) Peter was not a bishop "anywhere else."
j) Peter "ordained" a successor as the Pope in Rome
k) This ceremony "transferred" his official prerogatives to a successor.
l) The succession has remained "unbroken" up to the present day.



An Eastern Orthodox theologian and apologist wrote the following about this....

Lets review each of these twelve separate steps:

(a) V18 may not even refer to Peter. "We can see that 'Petros' is not the "petra' on which Jesus will build his church…In accord with 7:24, which Matthew quotes here, the 'petra' consists of Jesus' teaching, i.e., the law of Christ. 'This rock' no longer poses the problem that 'this' is ill suits an address to Peter in which he is the rock. For that meaning the text would have read more naturally 'on you.' Instead, the demonstrative echoes 7:24; i.e., 'this rock' echoes 'these my words.' Only Matthew put the demonstrative with Jesus words, which the rock stood for in the following parable (7:24-27). His reusing it in 16:18 points away from Peter to those same words as the foundation of the church…Matthew's Jesus will build only on the firm bedrock of his law (cf. 5:19-20; 28:19), not on the loose stone Peter. Also, we no longer need to explain away the association of the church's foundation with Christ rather than Peter in Mt 21:42," R. Gundry, Matthew (Eerdmans 1994), 334.

(b) Is falsified by the power-sharing arrangement in Mt 18:17-18 & Jn 20:23.

(c) The conception of a Petrine office is borrowed from Roman bureaucratic categories (officium) and read back into this verse. The original promise is indexed to the person of Peter. There is no textual assertion or implication whatsoever to the effect that the promise is separable from the person of Peter.

(d) In 16:18, perpetuity is attributed to the Church, and not to a church office.

(e) There is some evidence that Peter paid a visit to Rome (cf. 1 Pet 5:13). There is some evidence that Peter also paid a visit to Corinth (cf. 1 Cor 1:12; 9:5).

(f) This commits a category mistake. An Apostle is not a bishop. Apostleship is a vocation, not an office, analogous to the prophetic calling. Or, if you prefer, it’s an extraordinary rather than ordinary office.

(g) The original Church of Rome was probably organized by Messianic Jews like Priscilla and Aquilla (cf. Acts 18:2; Rom 16:3). It wasn’t founded by Peter. Rather, it consisted of a number of house-churches (e.g. Rom 16; Hebrews) of Jewish or Gentile membership—or mixed company.

(h) NT polity was plural rather than monarchal. The Catholic claim is predicated on a strategic shift from a plurality of bishops (pastors/elders) presiding over a single (local) church—which was the NT model—to a single bishop presiding over a plurality of churches. And even after you go from (i) oligarchic to (ii) monarchal prelacy, you must then continue from monarchal prelacy to (iii) Roman primacy, from Roman primacy to (iv) papal primacy, and from papal primacy to (v) papal infallibility. So step (h) really breaks down into separate steps—none of which enjoys the slightest exegetical support.

(j) Peter also presided over the Diocese of Pontus-Bithynia (1 Pet 1:1). And according to tradition, Antioch was also a Petrine See (Apostolic Constitutions 7:46.).

(j)-(k) This suffers from at least three objections:
i) These assumptions are devoid of exegetical support. There is no internal warrant for the proposition that Peter ordained any successors.
ii) Even if he had, there is no exegetical evidence that the imposition of hands is identical with Holy Orders.
iii) Even if we went along with that identification, Popes are elected to papal office, they are not ordained to papal office. There is no separate or special sacrament of papal orders as over against priestly orders. If Peter ordained a candidate, that would just make him a pastor (or priest, if you prefer), not a Pope.

(l) This cannot be verified. What is more, events like the Great Schism falsify it in practice, if not in principle.

These are not petty objections. In order to get from Peter to the modern papacy you have to establish every exegetical and historical link in the chain. To my knowledge, I haven’t said anything here that a contemporary Catholic scholar or theologian would necessarily deny. They would simply fallback on a Newmanesque principle of dogmatic development to justify their position. But other issues aside, this admits that there is no straight-line deduction from Mt 16:18 to the papacy. What we have is, at best, a chain of possible inferences. It only takes one broken link anywhere up or down the line to destroy the argument. Moreover, only the very first link has any apparent hook in Mt 16:18. Except for (v), all the rest depend on tradition and dogma. Their traditional support is thin and equivocal while the dogmatic appeal is self-serving.



​

I hope that helps.

Yes

Thanks!

I think this Orthodox theologian and priest raises some very good points. But since this is an Orthodox position, I'll likely let the Orthodox discuss it, if you decide that's something you'd welcome. I think he raises very good points, for all 12 issues here. Of course, you are required to disagree, and I respect that.



Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Josiah,

When it comes to theological discussions with the Orthodox on topics that some see as contradictory I leave it to our respective church leaders since they are far more adept to handle these things. Besides those Orthodox tend to be more schooled then most here at GT and I am afraid I would show much of my ignorance.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Josiah,

When it comes to theological discussions with the Orthodox on topics that some see as contradictory I leave it to our respective church leaders since they are far more adept to handle these things. Besides those Orthodox tend to be more schooled then most here at GT and I am afraid I would show much of my ignorance.

Greetings! The Orthodox do not really delve into the Jewish/Hebrew book of Revelation as do the Protestants and I always wonder why.........Thoughts?

Revelation 17:1 And came one out of the seven messengers of the ones having the seven bowls and he speaks with me saying to me "Hither thou! I shall be showing to thee the judgement of the Prostitute/pornhV <4204>, the great, the one sitting upon the many waters

Reve 19:2 That true and just the judgings of Him, that He judges the Prostitute/pornhn <4204>, the Great, who-any corrupts the land in the prostitution/porneia <4202 of Her...............

Revelation 22:15 Without the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the prostitutes/pornoi <4205>, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and every one who is loving and is doing a Falsehood .

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Greetings! The Orthodox do not really delve into the Jewish/Hebrew book of Revelation as do the Protestants and I always wonder why.........Thoughts?

Revelation 17:1 And came one out of the seven messengers of the ones having the seven bowls and he speaks with me saying to me "Hither thou! I shall be showing to thee the judgement of the Prostitute/pornhV <4204>, the great, the one sitting upon the many waters

Reve 19:2 That true and just the judgings of Him, that He judges the Prostitute/pornhn <4204>, the Great, who-any corrupts the land in the prostitution/porneia <4202 of Her...............

Revelation 22:15 Without the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the prostitutes/pornoi <4205>, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and every one who is loving and is doing a Falsehood .

LLoJ,

We gotta think of a nickname for you that has to do with Revelations.

By the way have you studied why they used prostitute even if it was not a person or having to do with sex?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Josiah,

When it comes to theological discussions with the Orthodox on topics that some see as contradictory I leave it to our respective church leaders since they are far more adept to handle these things. Besides those Orthodox tend to be more schooled then most here at GT and I am afraid I would show much of my ignorance.

Fine. Then we'll leave it where I left it.



.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Fine. Then we'll leave it where I left it.



.

Josiah,

In regards to the Lutheran church how do they understand Peter? And how do they interpret Matthew 16 where Peter is called Rock and given the Keys?

 

[archierieus]

LLoJ,

We gotta think of a nickname for you that has to do with Revelations.

By the way have you studied why they used prostitute even if it was not a person or having to do with sex?

Hi Jack,
Yes, in Rev. 17 the word is porneia. Louw-Nida comments on this use of the word, as referring to apostasy, that is, spiritual adultery.

Dave

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hi Jack,
Yes, in Rev. 17 the word is porneia. Louw-Nida comments on this use of the word, as referring to apostasy, that is, spiritual adultery.

Dave

Apostasy...rebellion.......wickdeness.......REPENT!

Daniel 11:32 And-ones-doing-wickedly, a-Covenant shall-pollute/defile in-smooth-flatteries, and-with Ones-knowing 'elohiym-of-him, they-shall-be-steadfast and-they-do.
35 And-from the-Intelligent-Ones, they-shall-stumble, to-refine in-them and-to-purify and-to-whiten until era-of end that further to-Appointed-Time.

2 Thess 2:3 No any ye should be deluding according to no yet one manner/way, that if-ever no may be coming the apostasy/from-standing/apo-stasia <646> first. And may be being un-covered the Man of the Sin, the Son of the destruction/apwleiaV <684>.