A question asked on the road

[Xeno.of.athens]

@hislegacy - what was that all about? None of it matters, most isn't true, and on the whole it contributes nothing to the discussion.

 

[jas3]

I quoted your sources - so the 'bothered to take the time" comment is moot.

Clearly I was addressing a part of the issue you did not. - that is the difference.

No you didn't, you "quoted" three words I used summarizing one source of several. And when proven wrong on one point, you say nothing and want to argue about something else.
If you have no interest in understanding what the early Christians actually wrote, I suggest you read Proverbs 18, particularly verse 2, and consider whether it would be helpful for you to be aware of their writings before claiming things that are demonstrably false.

 

[Always in His Presence]

@hislegacy - what was that all about? None of it matters, most isn't true, and on the whole it contributes nothing to the discussion.

Then you can certainly disprove the parts that were false.

It contributes a lot to the discussion, because it points out intrinsic errors.

 

[Always in His Presence]

No you didn't, you "quoted" three words I used summarizing one source of several. And when proven wrong on one point, you say nothing and want to argue about something else.
If you have no interest in understanding what the early Christians actually wrote, I suggest you read Proverbs 18, particularly verse 2, and consider whether it would be helpful for you to be aware of their writings before claiming things that are demonstrably false.

Re-read the OP - the poster quotes verbatim one of the Roman Catholic writings on the church being built on Peter.

First I am told that Peter had authority over the church and you quote that the Apostles had equal authority. Which is it, because you cannot have it both ways.

I respond a number of times showing inaccuracies.

Did you present any writing pre 300ad showing the Catholic (universal) church accepted Peter being the foundation - or the first pope?

No you did not.

Did you retort any of the questions I asked? No you did not.
Did you address the issue that while Peter was the Bishop of Rome there were number of other Bishops in their countries - no you did not
Did you address the issue that Paul covered three continents and Peter a city - no you did not
Did you address that the Pastoral Epistles that set the frame work for the local church was not written by Peter the supposed head of the church - no you did not.

Just for fun:

Proverbs 18: 1
A man who isolates himself seeks his own desire;
He rages against all wise judgment.
2 A fool has no delight in understanding,
But in expressing his own heart.

What exactly does that have to do with Peter on the road?

 

[Always in His Presence]

Read Cyprian of Carthage's treatise on the unity of the Church (link), which is within the first 300 years and takes the position that while all of the apostles had equal power and authority, Peter was the center of unity.

Common sense - 12 men with EQUAL POWER AND AUTHORITY -

No one had more power, nor authority - if they did - it would not have been equal -

 

[jas3]

Re-read the OP - the poster quotes verbatim one of the Roman Catholic writings on the church being built on Peter.

We weren't talking about the OP, we were talking about your claim that in the first 300 years of Christianity "Peter was not given any exalted place that the other 12 and Paul was given."

First I am told that Peter had authority over the church and you quote that the Apostles had equal authority. Which is it, because you cannot have it both ways.

You are confusing different posts. I responded specifically to one point of your argument that you still haven't addressed.

Did you present any writing pre 300ad showing the Catholic (universal) church accepted Peter being the foundation - or the first pope?

I did, Cyprian of Carthage's treatise On the Unity of the Church, chapter 4, as well as Tertullian's treatise On Modesty, which you would have seen if you clicked on the first link.
As for your other questions, you don't dictate where the conversation goes. We're still on the point you made about the place of Peter relative to the other apostles.

Common sense - 12 men with EQUAL POWER AND AUTHORITY -

Once again, you are quoting my summary, not the document itself. Aren't you interested in the truth?

 

[Always in His Presence]

We weren't talking about the OP, we were talking about your claim that in the first 300 years of Christianity "Peter was not given any exalted place that the other 12 and Paul was given."

Read Cyprian of Carthage's treatise on the unity of the Church (link), which is within the first 300 years and takes the position that while all of the apostles had equal power and authority, Peter was the center of unity.

As for your other questions, you don't dictate where the conversation goes. We're still on the point you made about the place of Peter relative to the other apostles.

Your own post supports my point. - and my friend - you don't dictate where the conversation goes either.

 

[jas3]

Your own post supports my point.

"Equal power and authority" is not mutually exclusive with Peter being given a unique place among the apostles, or being "first among equals."

As a gesture of goodwill, I will quote Cyprian directly here:

If anyone considers and examines these things, there is no need of a lengthy discussion and arguments. Proof for faith is easy in a brief statement of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter: 'I say to thee,' He says, 'thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.' Upon him, being one, He builds His Church, and although after His resurrection He bestows equal power upon all the Apostles, and says: 'As the Father has sent me, I also send you. Receive ye the Holy Spirit: if you forgive the sins of anyone, they will be forgiven him; if you retain the sins of anyone, they will be retained,' yet that He might display unity, He established by His authority the origin of the same unity as beginning from one. Surely the rest of the Apostles also were that which Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership of office and of power, but the beginning proceeds from unity, that the Church of Christ may be shown to be one.

So, by Cyprian's own telling, the apostles were all equal in office (i.e. they were the first bishops) and power (i.e. the ability to forgive or retain sins, among other things) but Peter was uniquely distinguished as the earthly "origin of the same unity" by the Lord.

 

[Always in His Presence]

So, by Cyprian's own telling, the apostles were all equal in office (i.e. they were the first bishops) and power (i.e. the ability to forgive or retain sins, among other things) but Peter was uniquely distinguished as the earthly "origin of the same unity" by the Lord.

How does that equate to him being the individual the church is built on?

and when will you be answering my questions? If you don't plan on answering them, then you are not debating, but ponficating and this two sided discussion will go no where.

 

[jas3]

How does that equate to him being the individual the church is built on?

Are you just reading my summary again? Cyprian is very clear that Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18. "Upon him, being one, He builds His Church".

and when will you be answering my questions? If you don't plan on answering them, then you are not debating, but ponficating

When you demonstrate that you're engaging with the primary sources I've given you on this one topic, and that I'm not spending effort quoting these sources only to have them be ignored, I'll be happy to address the other topics that have been brought up, because those are inevitably going to involve the use of more primary sources.

 

[Always in His Presence]

I'll be happy to address the other topics that have been brought up, because those are inevitably going to involve the use of more primary sources.

Does that mean you will be answering some of my questions? or do we just part ways?

 

[Always in His Presence]

Are you just reading my summary again? Cyprian is very clear that Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18. "Upon him, being one, He builds His Church".

Cyprian is a theologian - his words are not infallible and we are discussing a subject that has been debated since the third century when it was first brought up.

 

[Always in His Presence]

The antithesis of the tradition:

​

The Roman Catholic Church claims that the first Bishop of Rome was the Apostle Peter himself. They base this on Jesus’ promise, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” (Matt 16:18), and “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt 16:19).​

​

But did Jesus really mean to say that he will build his church on the shoulders of Peter, and that he will give Peter the keys to heaven? Here are 7 reasons why this is pure nonsense:​

​

1. Moreover, in Paul’s letter to the church in Rome about 57 A.D.—27 years (!) after the first believers went back home to Rome — he never mentioned that he or Peter had been there. And in all his greetings in his letter to the Romans, Paul did not mention the name of Peter even once. If Peter was the pastor there at that time, Paul would have surely greeted him first.​

​

2. When Jesus addressed Peter, he was addressing him as the “spokesman” of the Twelve. Peter, being the most outspoken and impulsive among the Twelve, was always at the forefront of their conversations with Jesus. We know this when in verse 19, Jesus says to him, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” But two chapters later, Jesus repeats the same declaration verbatim, “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt 18:18). And to whom was he talking to in Matthew 18? Obviously, he was talking to all the disciples, not only to Peter, because the “you” here is in plural form.​

​

3.3. The “keys” are not given to Peter, but to all the apostles and all ministers who preach the true gospel. ​

​

4. The New Testament record tells us that Peter was not exalted above any of the other apostles. Immediately after this conversation, Jesus foretold his death, but Peter rashly vowed that this will never happen under his watch. Jesus then rebuked him very harshly, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me” (verse 23). In fact, the impulsive apostle was not true to his word, when in fear for his life, he denied Jesus three times. At the Jerusalem Council, Peter spoke about his work with the Gentiles, but it was not him, not even Paul, who presided over the great council; it was James (Acts 15:7, 13). And years after Peter witnessed to Gentiles (Acts 10), he refused to eat with Gentiles, and Paul rebuked him (Gal 2:11-15).​

​

5. Christ is the only Head of the Church (Ephesians 1:22-23; 5:23; Colossians 1:18). The church is under the rule and care of its one Mediator, Jesus Christ, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”​

​

6. Since Christ is the only Head of the Church, no man can ever be his “Vicar” on earth. And there are no other Apostles who followed after Peter and the other eleven Apostles. From the day of Pentecost, all the apostles started building the foundation of the church (Eph 2:20). Paul says that no other foundation except for Christ was laid by the apostles.​

​

7. Therefore, the foundational rock that Jesus was talking about was Peter’s confession. Everyone who confesses Jesus in his work as Christ the Savior and in his identity as the Son of God, the second Person of the Triune God, would be saved. And everyone who comes to this saving faith will be living stones that will form the church (1 Pet 2:4-5). All others who deny this will not be admitted into heaven, but a key will open to them the gates of hell into which they will thrown. ​

 

[jas3]

Cyprian is a theologian - his words are not infallible and we are discussing a subject that has been debated since the third century when it was first brought up.

His words don't have to be infallible to prove you wrong, though. Even if he was completely wrong, his and Tertullian's treatises identify Peter as uniquely distinguished, so unless you're going to argue that they weren't really Christians, we have direct writings from two Christian authors in the time period you specified attesting to the existence of the belief.

Does that mean you will be answering some of my questions? or do we just part ways?

That depends, are you here to have a discussion in good faith? Or are you going to refuse to concede even a fairly small point?

I'm not sure what article you're quoting in your last post, but it has nothing to do with what Christian authors in the first 3 centuries wrote.

 

[Always in His Presence]

That depends, are you here to have a discussion in good faith? Or are you going to refuse to concede even a fairly small point?

I concede the point that a theologian 100 years after Peters death said he considered Peter to be the center of unity - and it is not germane to a Papal position, nor the foundation of the church.

Are you willing to have a discussion in good faith - I believe this is the sixth or seventh request to address my questions - please and thank you.

I'll not reply until you do.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

@hislegacy

Despite his role as a Presbyterian church minister in the nineteenth century, Albert Barnes writes:

Mat 16:18​

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter - The word “Peter,” in Greek, means “a rock.” It was given to Simon by Christ when he called him to be a disciple, Joh 1:42​

Cephas is a Syriac word, meaning the same as Peter - a rock, or stone. The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: “Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock, denoting firmness, solidity, stability, and your confession has shown that the name is appropriate. I see that you are worthy of the name, and will be a distinguished support of my religion.”​

And upon this rock ... - This passage has given rise to many different interpretations. Some have supposed that the word “rock” refers to Peter’s confession, and that Jesus meant to say, upon this rock, this truth that thou hast confessed, that I am the Messiah and upon confessions of this from all believers, I will build my church. Confessions like this shall be the test of piety, and in such confessions shall my church stand amid the flames of persecution, the fury of the gates of hell. Others have thought that Jesus referred to himself. Christ is called a rock, Isa 28:16; 1Pe 2:8. And it has been thought that he turned from Peter to himself, and said, “Upon this rock, this truth that I am the Messiah - upon myself as the Messiah, I will build my church.” Both these interpretations, though plausible, seem forced upon the passage to avoid the main difficulty in it. Another interpretation is, that the word “rock” refers to Peter himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage; ...​

 

[jas3]

I concede the point that a theologian 100 years after Peters death said he considered Peter to be the center of unity - and it is not germane to a Papal position, nor the foundation of the church.

That's not really conceding the point we were discussing, which was your claim that Peter was not given a distinguished position within the first 300 years of Christianity, but alright.

Did you address the issue that while Peter was the Bishop of Rome there were number of other Bishops in their countries

This isn't a problem for the Catholic position, nor for an Orthodox position that would acknowledge petrine primacy but would place it in the office of bishop and would acknowledge the see if Rome as "first among equals." There are bishops in other countries today too, who within Catholicism are subject to their pope, and who within Orthodoxy are subject to a lesser extent to their metropolitan. This even exists within Anglicanism and Lutheranism, the idea of there being an archbishop in no way threatens the office of the bishop.

Did you address the issue that Paul covered three continents and Peter a city

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Are you saying that because Paul was a missionary while Peter was an urban bishop that Paul should have more authority than Peter?

Did you address that the Pastoral Epistles that set the frame work for the local church was not written by Peter the supposed head of the church

The gospel accounts weren't written by Jesus either, that doesn't mean that Mark has more authority than the Lord.

 

[Always in His Presence]

That's not really conceding the point we were discussing, which was your claim that Peter was not given a distinguished position within the first 300 years of Christianity, but alright.

You seem to be conflating conceding with agreeing - which we do not - and that's OK

This isn't a problem for the Catholic position, nor for an Orthodox position that would acknowledge petrine primacy but would place it in the office of bishop and would acknowledge the see if Rome as "first among equals." There are bishops in other countries today too, who within Catholicism are subject to their pope, and who within Orthodoxy are subject to a lesser extent to their metropolitan. This even exists within Anglicanism and Lutheranism, the idea of there being an archbishop in no way threatens the office of the bishop.

Wonderful - but there is much, much more to Christianity than Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy and really always has been.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Are you saying that because Paul was a missionary while Peter was an urban bishop that Paul should have more authority than Peter?

No - as I stated - If we go with the teaching that Peter was the head of the church - why did the Holy Spirit use Paul to establish it?
Why did Paul rebuke the head of the Church? How could he if Peter was in a "distinguished position".

PLEASE answer this query -

The gospel accounts weren't written by Jesus either, that doesn't mean that Mark has more authority than the Lord.

That is so audacious I cannot politely reply.

 

[jas3]

If we go with the teaching that Peter was the head of the church - why did the Holy Spirit use Paul to establish it?

You are assuming that missionary activity equates to establishing the church, which it does not. The Church, the institution, was established at Pentecost. Paul wasn't even a convert then.

Why did Paul rebuke the head of the Church?

Because he was sinning. Not even the most ultramontanist Catholic would say that the pope is impeccable.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

there is much, much more to Christianity than Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy and really always has been.

I do not think that there is, but you are welcome to make your case - perhaps in a new thread, snice this one is not about the issue.