What IS MATT 16:18 REALLY TEACHING ?

[Xeno.of.athens]

Yes, Paul is using "father' in the familial sense, to indicate an intimate, loving connection between older Christians and younger Christians who are viewed as having shared a history together.

Jesus referred to the kind of "father" that appears to have some kind of political status, such as authority over someone, as a father has authority over his children. These are two separate uses of the same word, "father."

We are not to give fatherly authority to fellow Christians in the political sense, as if they have authority over our Salvation. But we can treat them as elders, and give them respect for the experience and knowledge they have.

Saint Paul explains how he is the father of the Corinthian Christians, he wrote: For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

 

[ozso]

I gave you a list of the popes that started with saint Peter. I said nothing whatever about saint Clement being its author. That is an amusing idea, he would have to occasionally rise from the grave and carve a new name as each earthly Pope died. That is hilarious.

You claimed the letter of Clement was rock solid evidence of Peter being the first bishop of Rome. When I tried to get you to give citation to that claim you posted an image of the papal memorial plaque in St. Peter's Basilica.

You were asked for evidence to back up your claim, and all you've done is evade and gaslight so far.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You claimed the letter of Clement was rock solid evidence of Peter being the first bishop of Rome. When I tried to get you to give citation to that claim you posted an image of the papal memorial plaque in St. Peter's Basilica.

You were asked for evidence to back up your claim, and all you've done is evade and gaslight so far.

It is not gas-lighting to ask you to look it up for yourself. It isn't evading either. Try a google scholar search.

[click here to read it]

 

[ozso]

The point I intended to make is that saint Paul wrote a letter (called Romans) addressed to the church in Rome.

Paul never wrote "to the church of Rome" like he wrote "to the church of God in Corinth" (1 Cor 1:2).

 

[RandyPNW]

Saint Paul explains how he is the father of the Corinthian Christians, he wrote: For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

Yes. Didn't you understand my point? There is a difference between political authority, such as a father has authority over his children, and familial relationships, such as a father and his children love one another.

Certainly, Paul had some authority over his converts in terms of doctrinal knowledge and office. But he was not to be called "father" as if his office offers political control over other Christians.

The office and the name do not contain in themselves authority over other Christians. Christ is the ultimate political authority, who confers only limited authority upon his representatives.

Popes and the Catholic Church do not control Salvation for others. They are purely "ambassadors for Christ," if indeed that is what they're doing.

 

[One God and Father of All]

I'm not against the Catholic Church. It is the origin of Christianity, since Christianity began in the Roman Empire. I do respect the many things the Catholic Church has done in history. But it must be willing to place Christ and Scripture over its own government.

And often, it has failed to do so, except that it is willing to reform *in its own way,* refusing to submit to outside criticism. That is not "mutual submission," which is what Paul called for us to do. It is not the "meek spirit" that Christ called for us to exhibit.

However, there have been many meek popes, priests, monks, and saints. God bless their memories!

I'm concerned about the dilution of Christian spirituality within the Catholic Church, as tradition seems to have replaced genuine spirituality and faith. I'm concerned about those who spend more time defending a church tradition than Christian truth, which alone can save!

This can happen and does happen in every Church Denomination, East and West. We all need to regularly "examine ourselves." And we must put Christ even above our own families. That is genuine commitment to Christ.

The early church was plagued by false teaching. Just read Paul’s letters. No sooner would he leave a church and false teachers would come in and try to undo all that he had done. That’s why his letters are vitally important. It was easy then, just as it is today, to persuade people by false teaching. That why the scripture is above all else.without relying on them for truth any false teaching would prevail.
Since there was false teaching coming out of the early church who can say that the Church of Rome did not or would not fall prey to false teaching. No one can say that.
So we must look to the scripture and the scripture alone for the truth else we risk being led by lies.
It would have been very easy for an early church to have formed and grow that held false doctrines That‘s why it’s a fallacy to say we rely on tradition for truth and go around claiming “it’s what the early church believed“ whether or not the scripture actually teaches it.

 

[ozso]

It is not gas-lighting to ask you to look it up for yourself. It isn't evading either. Try a google scholar search.

Telling someone to google evidence of your claim while reusing to provide it yourself is the epitome of evasiveness. And your mockery came off as gaslighting.

[click here to read it]

I already posted that:

There is CLEMENT OF ROME, First Epistle but it offers no evidence whatsoever of Peter being the bishop of Rome. The only thing written about Peter in it is:

CHAPTER 5 -- NO LESS EVILS HAVE ARISEN FROM THE SAME SOURCE IN THE MOST RECENT TIMES. THE MARTYRDOM OF PETER AND PAUL.

But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.

That's the only mention of Peter in Clement's epistle. It offers no evidence whatsoever of Peter being the bishop of Rome.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Paul never wrote "to the church of Rome" like he wrote "to the church of God in Corinth" (1 Cor 1:2).

Do you think that saint Paul didn't wrote to the church in Rome?

Greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in Asia.
[Rom 16:5 ESV]

 

[BeyondET]

Saint Peter's remains were found (re-discovered) at the end of WW II.

Says who the vatican,

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I already posted that:

That's the only mention of Paul in Clement's epistle. It offers no evidence whatsoever of Peter being the bishop of Rome.

I am glad you looked it up for yourself.

Saint Peter is an apostle, as saint Clement mentions. He was leader of the church in Rome. Pope.

1Clem 5:1
But, to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those
champions who lived nearest to our time. Let us set before us the
noble examples which belong to our generation.

1Clem 5:2
By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous
pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even unto death.

1Clem 5:3
Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles.

1Clem 5:4
There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one
not one but many labours, and thus having borne his testimony went to
his appointed place of glory.

1Clem 5:5
By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the
prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in
bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in
the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the
reward of his faith,

1Clem 5:6
having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached
the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony
before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the
holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance.

 

[ozso]

I am glad you looked it up for yourself.

No one should have to look up evidence of a claim you made. You are the one who is supposed to do that. Instead you were being evasive and or lazy.

Saint Peter is an apostle, as saint Clement mentions. He was leader of the church in Rome. Pope.

1Clem 5:1
But, to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those
champions who lived nearest to our time. Let us set before us the
noble examples which belong to our generation.

1Clem 5:2
By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous
pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even unto death.

1Clem 5:3
Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles.

1Clem 5:4
There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one
not one but many labours, and thus having borne his testimony went to
his appointed place of glory.

1Clem 5:5
By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the
prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in
bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in
the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the
reward of his faith,

1Clem 5:6
having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached
the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony
before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the
holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance.

1Clem 5:3
Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles.

1Clem 5:4
There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one
not one but many labours, and thus having borne his testimony went to
his appointed place of glory.

Once again, that is not any evidence whatsoever of Peter being the Bishop of Rome. Much less "rock solid evidence" as you claimed.

 

[One God and Father of All]

You claimed the letter of Clement was rock solid evidence of Peter being the first bishop of Rome. When I tried to get you to give citation to that claim you posted an image of the papal memorial plaque in St. Peter's Basilica.

You were asked for evidence to back up your claim, and all you've done is evade and gaslight so far.

If Peter was made head of the church don’t you think Paul would have informed the people of such a matter.if that were true then most certainly it would have been mentioned in the book of Acts.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

No one should have to look up evidence of a claim you made. You are the one who is supposed to do that. Instead you were being evasive and or lazy.

1Clem 5:3
Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles.

1Clem 5:4
There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one
not one but many labours, and thus having borne his testimony went to
his appointed place of glory.

Once again, that is not any evidence whatsoever of Peter being the Bishop of Rome. Much less "rock solid evidence" as you claimed.

I would think that being Apostle in Rome was the same thing, only better, as being bishop of Rome.

 

[One God and Father of All]

I am glad you looked it up for yourself.

Saint Peter is an apostle, as saint Clement mentions. He was leader of the church in Rome. Pope.

1Clem 5:1
But, to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those
champions who lived nearest to our time. Let us set before us the
noble examples which belong to our generation.

1Clem 5:2
By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous
pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even unto death.

1Clem 5:3
Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles.

1Clem 5:4
There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one
not one but many labours, and thus having borne his testimony went to
his appointed place of glory.

1Clem 5:5
By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the
prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in
bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in
the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the
reward of his faith,

1Clem 5:6
having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached
the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony
before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the
holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance.

He viewed Peter and Paul as equals. He does not set one above the other, nor does he say Peter was the head.

 

[ozso]

I would think that being Apostle in Rome was the same thing, only better, as being bishop of Rome.

Where does Clement call Peter an Apostle in Rome?

There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one
not one but many labours, and thus having borne his testimony went to
his appointed place of glory. 1Clem 5:4

There is no mention of that whatsoever there.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

He viewed Peter and Paul as equals. He does not set one above the other, nor does he say Peter was the head.

Well, saints Peter and Paul are both apostles, but saint Peter was chosen by Jesus Christ to be head of the Church. That is what Matthew 16:18 tells us. I do not quite see the purpose of your stated opposition to almost everything I have written, Rome was a city with a Church in the first century. Peter was in Rome, Peter was martyred in Rome (as was Paul). And being head of the whole Church saint Peter is ipso facto head of the church in Rome.

 

[ozso]

He viewed Peter and Paul as equals. He does not set one above the other, nor does he say Peter was the head.

Well, saints Peter and Paul are both apostles, but saint Peter was chosen by Jesus Christ to be head of the Church. That is what Matthew 16:18 tells us. I do not quite see the purpose of your stated opposition to almost everything I have written, Rome was a city with a Church in the first century. Peter was in Rome, Peter was martyred in Rome (as was Paul). And being head of the whole Church saint Peter is ipso facto head of the church in Rome.

The reason why you're experiencing opposition is because you are presenting extremely poor apologetics.

 

[One God and Father of All]

Where does Clement call Peter an Apostle in Rome?

There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one
not one but many labours, and thus having borne his testimony went to
his appointed place of glory. 1Clem 5:4

There is no mention of that whatsoever there.

Obviously it a later invented by, I must say, some very prideful men who wanted to set themselves up as leaders. They even went so far as to set a new head over the church ignoring the fact that the church already had a head of the body, Christ.

 

[One God and Father of All]

Well, saints Peter and Paul are both apostles, but saint Peter was chosen by Jesus Christ to be head of the Church. That is what Matthew 16:18 tells us. I do not quite see the purpose of your stated opposition to almost everything I have written, Rome was a city with a Church in the first century. Peter was in Rome, Peter was martyred in Rome (as was Paul). And being head of the whole Church saint Peter is ipso facto head of the church in Rome.

Christ is head over the body. The body does not have two heads. Two heads of a body are a work of fiction.

 

[ozso]

Christ is head over the body. The body does not have two heads. Two heads of a body are a work of fiction.

Actually it's three heads; Jesus, Mary, Pope.