A question asked on the road

[hislegacy]

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

Just saying something doesn't matter and is not true - is not a winning argument - In theology or even just a debate - we learn and grow by posting point and counter point - summarily dismissing a post is non productive IMHO-

I look forward to your replies that actually challenge what I posted - show how most of it is not true -

@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; ...​

@Xeno.of.athens - I am well aware that teaching has spanned generations - my questions still stand. Yes you can find quotes that support your position - as I can also find quotes to support mine.

Your position states that Jesus said the Church would be built on Peter - yet Peter never founded a church, never wrote and Epistle addressing church governance or structure (as Paul did), was never recorded as a global leader in the Catholic (universal) church, is not noted to give instructions to churches, wrote only two of 27 Books that form the modern church...... the list goes on.

In fact Peter's role as the foundation of the church was not spoken of until the 'church' became Romanized in the third century.

The teaching flies in the face of what the Holy Spirit said through Paul:

Eph 2:19 19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord,​

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

yet Peter never founded a church, never wrote and Epistle addressing church governance or structure (as Paul did), was never recorded as a global leader in the Catholic (universal) church, is not noted to give instructions to churches, wrote only two of 27 Books that form the modern church......

I made a typo correction in your post; I hope that is okay.

Saint Peter was called to preside over the earthly Church, he was not called to be its primary legislator, nor to administer each and every part of its work, he was called to govern, to decide disputes, and to be the final court of appeal when the ordinary courts were unable to decide a matter.

Like the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, his role is to decide matters, like the President his role is to be the commander in chief, like a king he rules but through his ministers. I guess that is enough analogies.​

Saint Peter is called to be the Rock upon which Christ builds his Church. He has the keys of the kingdom of heaven, when he opens it is open, when he shuts it is shut. What he binds remains bund and what he unbinds remains unbound. That is his commission. Not these other things that your post mentions; saint Peter was not called to be the principal author of the New Testament, nor was he called to plant and establish more churches than any other, nor was he called to draw up Church discipline and governance rules. His calling is to be the Rock, the firm foundation that can be relied upon, and his calling is to keep the gates of heaven.

In his own see he had charge to preside over the flock of God, as all bishops do, and in addition he is called to feed the sheep and the lambs, the sheep being the other bishops and priests, the lambs being the people of God in general. Saint John records the commission that saint Peter received from the Lord Jesus, on the shores of the lake:

Joh 21:15-19 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. (16) He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. (17) He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep. (18) Amen, amen, I say to thee, When thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. (19) And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me.​

Verses 18 and 19 tell of saint Peter's martyrdom in Rome.

 

[hislegacy]

I made a typo correction in your post; I hope that is okay.

Saint Peter was called to preside over the earthly Church,

When did that happen? If he is called to preside over the early church - why is there no record of him doing so?

he was not called to be its primary legislator, nor to administer each and every part of its work, he was called to govern, to decide disputes, and to be the final court of appeal when the ordinary courts were unable to decide a matter.

Again - when did that happen? Please cite a dispute between Bishops that Peter Governed over.

There is exactly one record of Peter speaking about a dispute - not one in the 57 years following up to his crucifixion

​

​

Saint Peter is called to be the Rock upon which Christ builds his Church. He has the keys of the kingdom of heaven, when he opens it is open, when he shuts it is shut. What he binds remains bound and what he unbinds remains unbound. That is his commission. Not these other things that your post mentions;

I also hope you don't mind me correcting your spelling - the word is bound - not bund.

saint Peter was not called to be the principal author of the New Testament, nor was he called to plant and establish more churches than any other, nor was he called to draw up Church discipline and governance rules. His calling is to be the Rock, the firm foundation that can be relied upon, and his calling is to keep the gates of heaven.

Where is that assumption supported by fact? If, as the Roman Tradition states the church was built on him - yet as you state - he never founded a church - as I have shown, never wrote regarding the operation of the church - I am not aware of beyond one instance in Acts of any record of him ruling on a dispute - there is no record of Peter binding or loosing anything -

Even the term papas did not exist until hundreds of years after his death.

In his own see he had charge to preside over the flock of God, as all bishops do, and in addition

That is found NO where in scripture - nor in the first century church - In fact - Paul had greater authority than Peter. Even to the point of correcting Peter at one point. The term tradition continues to use is 'his see' - a term that did not exist until the Catholic (universal) Church was Romanized hundreds of years later.

he is called to feed the sheep and the lambs, the sheep being the other bishops and priests, the lambs being the people of God in general. Saint John records the commission that saint Peter received from the Lord Jesus, on the shores of the lake:

Joh 21:15-19 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. (16) He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. (17) He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep. (18) Amen, amen, I say to thee, When thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. (19) And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me.​

Verses 18 and 19 tell of saint Peter's martyrdom in Rome.

Yes, in Jesus restoring Peter (whom Jesus called Satan at one point) Jesus did tell him to feed His sheep - but that is what ALL the Apostles did.

and yes, Peter was martyred in Rome.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

yet as you state - he never founded a church

You know that I did not state that. But here is some information that may help:

1. Church of Antioch: Saint Peter is recognized as the founder of the Church of Antioch. Antioch, located in present-day Turkey, was an important centre for early Christianity. It was here that the followers of Jesus were first called “Christians” (Acts 11:26).
2. Church of Rome: Saint Peter is also traditionally regarded as the founder of the Church of Rome. According to Catholic tradition, Peter served as the first bishop of Rome, which later became the papacy. His connection to Rome is significant, and he is considered the first pope in an unbroken succession of popes.
3. Other Churches: While the New Testament does not explicitly mention other churches founded by Peter, his leadership and influence extended beyond Antioch and Rome. He played a crucial role in spreading Christianity throughout the Mediterranean region.

It is also worth noting that the first church, the church in Jerusalem, was gathered around the apostles, saint Peter among them and recognised as their leader.

 

[hislegacy]

You know that I did not state that. But here is some information that may help:

1. Church of Antioch: Saint Peter is recognized as the founder of the Church of Antioch. Antioch, located in present-day Turkey, was an important centre for early Christianity. It was here that the followers of Jesus were first called “Christians” (Acts 11:26).

Paul the Apostle (also called Saul) and Barnabas preached in Antioch for a year, and followers of the church were called "Christians" for the first time. Not Peter

Acts 15:22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barnabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.

1. Church of Rome: Saint Peter is also traditionally regarded as the founder of the Church of Rome. According to Catholic tradition, Peter served as the first bishop of Rome, which later became the papacy. His connection to Rome is significant, and he is considered the first pope in an unbroken succession of popes.

That is a Roman Catholic tradition - not universally held, nor recognized as truth. Even your quote recognizes that fact.

1. Other Churches: While the New Testament does not explicitly mention other churches founded by Peter, his leadership and influence extended beyond Antioch and Rome. He played a crucial role in spreading Christianity throughout the Mediterranean region.

Once again - where is that shown - he is mentioned in a leadership position one time in the Epistles and never again in the New Testament nor the following hundred years - not one ruling - not one decision, not one polity - nothing.

It is also worth noting that the first church, the church in Jerusalem, was gathered around the apostles, saint Peter among them and recognized as their leader.

He was one of them - the most vocal certainly - but as stated in another post - they were equal in authority and power Hope you do not mind me correcting your spelling again.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Paul the Apostle (also called Saul) and Barnabas preached in Antioch for a year, and followers of the church were called "Christians" for the first time. Not Peter

The Church in Antioch was already operative when Barnabas brought Paul to it. Saint Peter founded it some time earlier.

 

[hislegacy]

The Church in Antioch was already operative when Barnabas brought Paul to it. Saint Peter founded it some years earlier.

All you need now is proof of that - simply cite in Scripture Peter's missionary journey to Antioch

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

All you need now is proof of that - simply cite in Scripture Peter's missionary journey to Antioch

You ought to know better than that. Sola scriptura is not my theological straight jacket. Holy Tradition informs me about who founded the church at Antioch and who was its first bishop.

 

[hislegacy]

You ought to know better than that. Sola scriptura is not my theological straight jacket. Holy Tradition informs me about who founded the church at Antioch and who was its first bishop.

You sure do quote a lot of scripture as proof for someone not in a theological straight jacket. IMHO - Tradition does not let you question things said - that is a whole other straight jacket.

But I am not asking only for scripture - but ANY writing from the first church - the first 100 years - any mention of Peter as the head -

See, I just don't accept as truth something that not in existence for 200 years or more after his death -

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

IMHO - Tradition does not let you question things said - that is a whole other straight jacket.

Your humble opinion is in error.

 

[hislegacy]

Your humble opinion is in error.

A frequently repeated fiction is no less a fiction for having been frequently repeated.

 

[hislegacy]

But I am not asking only for scripture - but ANY writing from the first church - the first 100 years - any mention of Peter as the head -

my humble request -

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

"A frequently repeated fiction is no less a fiction for having been frequently repeated."

Wise words with which I am in full agreement.

 

[hislegacy]

"A frequently repeated fiction is no less a fiction for having been frequently repeated."

Wise words with which I am in full agreement.

Wonderful!

I look forward to your presenting proof as requested numerous times. Many thanks in advance.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I look forward to your presenting proof

What is "proof" according to your standards?

 

[hislegacy]

What is "proof" according to your standards?

Here are the last five times I have requested proof:

Your position states that Jesus said the Church would be built on Peter - yet Peter never founded a church, never wrote an Epistle addressing church governance or structure (as Paul did), was never recorded as a global leader in the Catholic (universal) church, is not noted to give instructions to churches, wrote only two of 27 Books that form the modern church...... the list goes on.

That is found NO where in scripture - nor in the first century church -

Please cite a dispute between Bishops that Peter Governed over.

Once again - where is that shown - he is mentioned in a leadership position one time in the Epistles and never again in the New Testament nor the following hundred years - not one ruling - not one decision, not one polity - nothing.

But I am not asking only for scripture - but ANY writing from the first church - the first 100 years - any mention of Peter as the head -

Your position is not supported by scripture - I understand - so support your position with proof from the FIRST century church leaders.

Note - first century - not third after the church was Romanized.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Your position is not supported by scripture

So, "proof" means "supported by scripture"?

I do not accept sola scriptura, nor do I adhere to it, that is your theological stand not mine. I provided evidence from holy tradition. That ends the dispute for me. You are free to differ.

 

[hislegacy]

So, "proof" means "supported by scripture"?

I do not accept sola scriptura, nor do I adhere to it, that is your theological stand not mine. I provided evidence from holy tradition. That ends the dispute for me. You are free to differ.

Your position is not supported by scripture - I understand - so support your position with proof from the FIRST century church leaders.

Note - first century - not third after the church was Romanized.

This makes the sixth and final attempt -

Either way - it is seems obvious beyond unsubstantiated tradition, there are no sources to sustain the Roman Catholic tradition that begins almost 300 years after his death - claiming Peter's leadership role over the whole church. - something not claimed up until that point.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

This makes the sixth and final attempt -

Either way - it is seems obvious beyond unsubstantiated tradition, there are no sources to sustain the Roman Catholic tradition that begins almost 300 years after his death - claiming Peter's leadership role over the whole church. - something not claimed up until that point.

Written sources about Holy Tradition are not required to be from the first century. Why do you think that they are?

 

[hislegacy]

Written sources about Holy Tradition are not required to be from the first century. Why do you think that they are?

Because the traditions did not exist in the first century.

If they were supported in the first - they would have been quoted 79 posts ago and you would have no quandary with me.