Peter Is Not The Rock!

[archierieus]

No one has tried to say the others recieved the keys

I do. First, on the level of the passage in question. In Mt. 16, Peter asked the disciples a question. Peter responded. Jesus responded in turn to Peter. This was a conversation between two individuals. It does her not indicate that any such 'keys' were given EXCLUSIVELY to Peter. If that were the case, then it would be "you alone" or "you yourself") a double pronoun as is used in the last verse of Romans 7. {Peter said, "Thou art the Christ . . ." Jesus responds to that affirmation, speaking to Peter. Did the other apostles also believe that Jesus was the Christ? James and John definitely did, the others struggled, but in the end, they ALL, except Judas, made that same affirmation. And on the Day of Pentecost, they ALL were together in the Upper Room, they ALL received the Holy Spirit, they ALL were speaking with other tongues. Peter preached on that occasion, others of them preached on other occasions.

As for what the 'keys' were, Jesus explains in the rest of the verse. "Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." These are the 'keys' Jesus was here describing.

Did the other apostles have these 'keys' as well? Yes, the same 'keys' are described in ch. 18:18. The same wording, the same powers. the pronoun there is plural. The other apostles had the same powers as Peter. But Jesus did not intend for those powers to be limited to the 12 apostles. They are given to those also who should believe on Jesus throughout the centuries, as they had. We, too, as believers, have the keys of the kingdom in the same sense they had the keys. We too have the power to heal, to cast out demons.

ONE huge issue which is a GIGANTIC red flag in the RC theology is the exaltation of man. That is a tell-tale marker. Lucifer wanted to exalt himself above the other angels. Self wants to exalt itself above others. But Jesus said to be a servant, and seek the lowest place. Incidentally, as I recall that is one thing that aroused the ire of the Church against Hus and Jerome. that painting of the lowly Jesus, contrasted with the picture of the pope in his pomp and regalia. What I have read on this thread CONFIRMS the exaltation of man--a sinful, erring mortal. that was NOT the teaching of Jesus.

As for the Biblical account of the apostles after Christ's ascension, there is nothing to indicate any special powers or position that Peter had, over the other apostles. Several apostles are mentioned by name, as well as deacons. Stephen, Philip, John, Peter, James the Less, James the brother of John, and of course Paul, for example. Each is desribed, each had a ministry. They were equals, as God's people today are equals.

Dave

 

[archierieus]

And where does it say that in the Bible?

The Bible is the supreme test of doctrine, faith and practice. One good key text is Isa. 8:20: "To the law and the testimony: if they speak not according to this Word, there is no light in them." There are numerous others, but I would suggest that familiarity with the Bible should provide that info.

Also why use the Bible in this fashion?

Because the Bible is the inspired Word of God. It is also a complete Book. Rev. 22 warns against anyone who adds to the words of 'this book.' It consists of eyewitness testimony of those who knew Jesus personally. John was the last of them.

From a Catholic perspective we believe the Bible because of Tradition.

As Protestants we believe the Bible and test any tradition or custom by the Bible.

This means that the faith the Jesus and the Apostles taught was 1st spoken then some of it was written down(the Bible).

What was written in the Bible is all that is necessary for our salvation. It is complete. No subsequent spiritual manifestation is on the same level as the Bible.

So that there is the Bible and the Oral Tradition all coming from one central deposit of faith. That is the faith that Jesus and the Apostles taught and passed down. The councils are part of the Oral Tradition, along with the Liturgy,other historical documents which show the Chrsitian faith such as the letters of St. Ignatious, Polycarp, ect...being lived.

Oral Tradition is the Christian faith put into practice and experienced.

Oral tradition also at times contains elements of error. Paul and Peter both warned that this would happen. The objective test of any such tradition is the Bible. Paul warned that even if 'an angel from heaven' should teach a different gospel, it was not from God. This points to things that would happen after Paul wrote.

Is it based on the Bible alone? If so why? What is the basis for this?

Because the Bible alone is God's inspired Word. Discussions in a Church council are not on the same level as the books of the Bible, written by direct revelation of God.

Oral Tradition is from God not man's tradition.

Oral Tradition is by nature subject to change and error. The New Testament consists of eyewitness accounts of those who walked and talked with Jesus. Oral tradition is not on that level.

But anyways where does the basis that Bible is the final test come from?

Once again, the Bible itself, Bible writers in both the Old and New Testaments refer to this. It is a bit late, this is typically pretty common knowledge within Protestant circles. It might be good to start a thread addressing this issue, and get others involved.

Dave

 

[archierieus]

Whoa! Lookie here! JESUS is saying the same thing to this Assembly :o

2 Thess 2:15 So then brothers! be ye standing firm and be ye holding/krateite <2902> (5720) to the traditions which ye were taught whether thru word or thru epistle of us.

Reve 2:25 Morely, which ye are having hold/krathsate <2902> (5657) ye! until which ever I should be arriving.

Traditions certainly may be within the semantic range for the word, paradoseis (accusative plural feminine) although a more exact meaning is 'a giving over,' 'teaching' either written or orally. 'Traditions' is not the primary meaning of the word, nor the etymology. KIM that the English word may convey a different semantic range than the original, to some people. So "teachings" may be a better choice.

Paul taught the people orally. Later, from prison, he wrote letters. Paul was an "eyewitness to His majesty," an inspired Bible writer and prophet of God. But Paul also warned that there would be a falling away, and not to follow DIFFERENT teachings than what the people had been taught by him as an apostle. Some of the 'traditions' which developed after Paul's death were DIFFERENT than what he had taught.

Dave

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Traditions certainly may be within the semantic range for the word, paradoseis (accusative plural feminine) although a more exact meaning is 'a giving over,' 'teaching' either written or orally. 'Traditions' is not the primary meaning of the word, nor the etymology. KIM that the English word may convey a different semantic range than the original, to some people. So "teachings" may be a better choice.

That was interesting. I decided to see how it looked in the greek and it appears to have a suffix and root word. The root word show #1394 only appears twice it seems. Thanks for that

2 Thess 2:15 So then brothers! be ye standing firm and be ye holding/krateite <2902> (5720) to the traditions/beside-gifts/para-doseiV <3862> which ye were taught whether thru word or thru epistle of us.

James 1:17 Every giving/gift/dosiV <1394>, and every perfect gratuity is from above, coming down from the Father of the lights--with whom is no alternation, nor shadow cast, by turning:

3862. paradosis par-ad'-os-is from 3860; transmission, i.e. (concretely) a precept; specially, the Jewish traditionary law:--ordinance, tradition.

3844. para par-ah' a primary preposition; properly, near; i.e. (with genitive case) from beside (literally or figuratively), (with dative case) at (or in) the vicinity of (objectively or subjectively), (with accusative case) to the proximity with (local (especially beyond or opposed to) or causal (on account of):--

1394. dosis dos'-is from the base of 1325; a giving; by implication, (concretely) a gift:--gift, giving.

 

[squint]

Peter was certainly 'renamed' from Cephas (hollow rock) to Peter (solid rock) by Jesus. One might presume the solidifying was from Truth put into his heart by God, that Jesus Is The Christ, The Son of The Living God said truth making Peter, the NEW MAN just as Saul was named PAUL, the NEW MAN.

When these Peter/Pope debates arise, they are usually in protest for the authority that the RCC takes from Peter and conveys upon itself, then uses same to LORD it over the balance of our heads. Peter speaks to me today everytime I read his words or of his actions. Peter in this way is assuredly NOT DEAD at least to me. God did assuredly USE him and Jesus prayed that he would be so used, just as Jesus desired for ALL of His disciples. Apostolic authority cannot be denied either.

Were I given a choice of Apostolic authority and had to pit one over another, which premise is ridiculous, it would certainly be Paul. But Paul himself condemned this type of authority and I'm sure Paul included Peter in the axiom. Don't have a clue as to why the RCC would fly in the face of this reality either:

1 Cor. 1:
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

The 'authority' of Peter would do me NO GOOD. When the seven sons of Sceva (mind reader) were confronted by THE EVIL SPIRIT, knowing Jesus whom Paul preached did them NO GOOD just as it would do NO GOOD to claim ADJURE by Jesus WHOM PETER preaches...

the EVIL SPIRT will STILL surely say SO WHAT! WHO ARE YE???


16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. 17 And this was known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.

I know who I am IN CHRIST, a PART of His Body just as Peter IS. We are not DIVIDED upon the authority of Peter, but JOINED by the Authority of God in Christ into the BODY of Christ.

Any man or organization who uses Peter or any OTHER MAN as his authority to DIVIDE us AWAY from The Body of Christ will not STOP Christ from Having HIS OWN BODY.

Jesus clearly advised Peter, "I TELL YOU....I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH."

enjoy!

squint

 

[Rhamiel]

1 Corinthians 1 does not speak agianst apostolic authority, but rather schism and division among believers.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

You write:

I agree with what you are saying. Anglian too likes to say that. RCCs are right and the Orthodox, even though they disagree with RCCs, are also right!!! Only the Protestants are wrong
But they stand indicted by the Word of God.

This is the first time I have read of a protestant saying his co-religionists are 'indicted' by the Word of God; if you look up the meaning of the word, I think you may decide it was not the mot juste here; it did give those of us who know what 'indict' means a quiet chuckle, though

You have a tendency towards reductionism, which tends to obscure nuance and complexity; this will be a deficiency for a theologian or historian of theology. My stated position is that since the Orthodox and the Catholics both hold to Holy Tradition and can trace their lineage back to the Apostolic Church, it is not surprising they have more in common with each other than either of them have with those who hold to a doctrine unknown before the sixteenth century. That does not mean protestants are 'wrong'. I know very little about them, and can only comment on what is posted by some of them here. Some seem to me entirely orthodox in their understanding of the Faith; some seem to express orthodox ideas in a way unfamiliar to me; some seem to express unorthodox ideas in a way familiar to anyone with a knowledge of ancient heresies; some express views which seem at variance with any Trinitarian understanding of the Faith. It would be impossible, as well as wrong, to make any comment on the whole of some nebulous concept called 'Protestantism'. I comment, when necessary, on what I read, and have, I hope with courtesy, disagreed on these boards with both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

The Bible is sharper than any two-edged sword and as long as I'm right according to Scriptures, that's all that matters.

And you know that how?

One of the problems with the view you, and others take, is it leads to statements suich as this from archierieus, whose posts I enjoy reading:

Because the Bible is the inspired Word of God. It is also a complete Book. Rev. 22 warns against anyone who adds to the words of 'this book.' It consists of eyewitness testimony of those who knew Jesus personally. John was the last of them

Since, it its original form, Revelation was a free-standing text, those words can only refer to the book itself, not the whole Bible, which did not exist as a single book when Revelation was penned. It was only after the Church had cononised the text of the NT that Revelation came at the end of the NT texts, thus prompting sixteenth century (and later) Protestants to the mistaken view offered by archierieus. This highlights the difficulty with private interpretation of the Book recognised by the Church.

How could the Revelation reference refer to the whole of book which didn't exist then? And had the Church ruled that it was the first of fourth of some other book than the last, no one would have come up with this ingenious, but clearly erroneous view.

If one recognises that what the Church canonised is the word of the Lord, then a Church which could recognise the form of that word is also able to recognise its meaning.

Of course the Catholics and the Orthodox disagree on things, but that is because they receive different strands within Holy Tradition, most especially in terms of which Councils they regard as Ecumenical. But none of the ancient Churches ever came up with the novel idea that Our Lord did not mean what He said when He offered His Body and His blood.

The authority by which you proclaim your interpretation appears to be your own; are you not as much a sinner as the rest of us? How can you be sure you are not being mislead by your own pride in your own abilities? You may, of course, be right, but how shall we know it?

peace,

Anglian

 

[beamishboy]

Dear Beamishboy,

You write:

This is the first time I have read of a protestant saying his co-religionists are 'indicted' by the Word of God; if you look up the meaning of the word, I think you may decide it was not the mot juste here; it did give those of us who know what 'indict' means a quiet chuckle, though

You are perfectly ridiculous when you accuse me of using the wrong word. Of course I know what "indict" means. What I said was this: You say the RCs are right and even though the Orthodox are different, they too are right in things which only one can be right. You say the Protestants are always wrong. I then separated the next line by a PARAGRAPH. And I proceeded: "But they stand indicted by the word of God" ie these people who say they are right and we are wrong, ie the RCCs and the Orthodox. But when you quoted my words, you removed the paragraph separating the two.

Anglian, I know you go through every post of mine with a fine toothcomb to see if you can ridicule me in any way. I know I'm quite remiss because I never read through what I've written and I would always click "Submit" and I'm likely to make some errors. But to accuse me of using a word the meaning of which I knew not is most unfair and untrue. Anyone reading my post can easily guess that I meant RCs and Orthodox in my use of "they". I admit I was a little careless because the preceding sentence was about Protestants but then I had separated both with a whole paragraph. The likelihood of confusion or even ambiguity is, I believe minimal. But you seized the opportunity nonetheless to ridicule me and without any justification either.

There are people in CF who are clearly ignorant of some of the more complex rules of grammar. Some of them are RCs and Orthodox. I've never ridiculed them for errors that they have made. If I did make a genuine error, I would accept the correction from you. But the fact is I used "indicted" in relation to RCs and Orthodox and others who have read it are not confused by it. I would like to be able to say that I knew the meaning of the word before you were born if the tables had been turned for us but alas, I have a disadvantage here and I can't resort to that.

If you must ridicule me, at least do so when I've made a real error. And I don't think such an error will be in language or theology. I'm confident in my language because I'm English and I'm confident in my theology because I'm Protestant. Minor slips are to be expected but using a word I do not know is not something I can be rightly accused of. (And if you think the preceding sentence contains a split infinitive, I can take you on with quotations from Fowler and other grammarians). I daresay there are very few words I do not know in the first place. Hehe.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

You write:

You are perfectly ridiculous when you accuse me of using the wrong word. Of course I know what "indict" means. What I said was this: You say the RCs are right and even though the Orthodox are different, they too are right in things which only one can be right. You say the Protestants are always wrong. I then separated the next line by a PARAGRAPH. And I proceeded: "But they stand indicted by the word of God" ie these people who say they are right and we are wrong, ie the RCCs and the Orthodox. But when you quoted my words, you removed the paragraph separating the two.

You must not take my little teasing as a desire to ridicule you; I suspect in less stressed times you would have seen that the tongue was planted firmly in my cheek; but I am sorry to have offended you, and apologise. It is not like you not to see a little humour; but then you are under stress, so that is understandable.

Your tendency towards reductionism though is there, and it will detract from your studies if you do nothing to curb it. It is precisely because your intellectual formation at this time is so crucial that I point this out. The besetting problem with bright young men (and I have spent a lifetime with them) is to preceive the strengths in their own argument as invalidating any in those of their discussants. This leads others to think them arrogant and solipsistic. Unchecked, the habit does, indeed, become those things, and I should hate that to happen to you.

You believe what you interpret the Bible to mean, relying upon your intellect. The Faith is not just for those with a PhD, and those with one know that. It is a lived and experienced faith, which is why over reliance upon one's own private interpretation of the book recognised by the Church is unwise.

Again, my apologies for causing you offence; I must not rely upon a shared English sense of humour, and must temper my little teases to your shorn lamb feelings. As I wrote earlier, I, like others, will miss you if you are here less often.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Thekla]

quick comment:

"paradosis" is used (and typically translated "tradition")

Mark 7:3,5,8 in reference to the Pharisees
I Cor. 11:2 teachings of Paul
II Thes. 2:15 teachings of Paul
I Cor. 11:23 in verb form, teachings of Paul

IIRC, it is used by Plato in reference to oral teachings (in the Academy)

 

[squint]

1 Corinthians 1 does not speak agianst apostolic authority, but rather schism and division among believers.

Apostolic authority is beyond any doubt. It was among 12 for a reason and it was assuredly not to claim ANY OF THEM as 'we are of.' Yet ALL in Corinth were doing THAT. ALL. And were admonished for being OF CEPHAS. Paul intentionally used CEPHAS as he did when berating same, the OLD MAN.

enjoy!

squint

 

[archierieus]

Since, it its original form, Revelation was a free-standing text, those words can only refer to the book itself, not the whole Bible, which did not exist as a single book when Revelation was penned. It was only after the Church had cononised the text of the NT that Revelation came at the end of the NT texts, thus prompting sixteenth century (and later) Protestants to the mistaken view offered by archierieus.

Chronologically, it was the last testimony of an eyewitness--John the Beloved. He was the last living apostle to write. He wrote by Divine inspiration. God inspired the writing of the referenced words. God knew that John was the last of the Bible writers, and God knew that the final book John wrote was the last book in the Bible--which, incidentally, deals so very largely with events still in the future and final events.

One of the fascinating things about the Bible is the common Authorship of all its books. While God had a number of penmen, He is the true Author. That truth reveals itself as one studies the Word.

Now, none of this has to do with whatever any of the Reformers may have said about it. If that was their position also, then well and good. If is of the nature of the thing. (skip the Latin lol)

As for private interpretation? Not careful study of the Word. NT Greek is not a difficult language to master. It is fairly clearcut, and withal a logical language. A huge volume of study has gone into developing an accurate understanding of the manuscripts. As a student comes up with a possible rendering, peer review is a very helpful tool. If the work product is valid, then any student, anywhere in the world, should be able to reach a similar result--or discover errors in the procedure and/or the result. Bible study of this type is 'doing science,' and a high degree of accuracy is both desired and may be achieved. This approach tends to minimize both subjectivity and human error! And it is a 'meritocracy.'


Regards to my esteemed online friend, Anglian.

Dave

 

[archierieus]

Peter was certainly 'renamed' from Cephas (hollow rock) to Peter (solid rock) by Jesus.

Certainly not in Mt. 16. There, Jesus said, "Thou art 'Petros,' the same nickname Jesus gave him in Jn. 1. Jesus did NOT say, 'Thou art petra' (common noun) nor did He say, as to Abram, 'From now on your name shall be Abraham, or to Jacob, 'You have prevailed with God and man,' changing his name to Israel. Petros was still Petros.

Dave

 

[beamishboy]

[/color][/size][/font]

Chronologically, it was the last testimony of an eyewitness--John the Beloved. He was the last living apostle to write. He wrote by Divine inspiration. God inspired the writing of the referenced words. God knew that John was the last of the Bible writers, and God knew that the final book John wrote was the last book in the Bible--which, incidentally, deals so very largely with events still in the future and final events.

One of the fascinating things about the Bible is the common Authorship of all its books. While God had a number of penmen, He is the true Author. That truth reveals itself as one studies the Word.

Now, none of this has to do with whatever any of the Reformers may have said about it. If that was their position also, then well and good. If is of the nature of the thing. (skip the Latin lol)

As for private interpretation? Not careful study of the Word. NT Greek is not a difficult language to master. It is fairly clearcut, and withal a logical language. A huge volume of study has gone into developing an accurate understanding of the manuscripts. As a student comes up with a possible rendering, peer review is a very helpful tool. Bible study of this type is 'doing science,' and a high degree of accuracy is both desired and may be achieved.

This approach tends to minimize both subjectivity and human error!

Regards to my esteemed online friend, Anglian.

Dave

Very good post!!! A pity the beamishboy can't stay and must do a hit-and-run. The beamishboy is being pursued and watched over by lots of people. Women and slaves have been emancipated but young people are still enslaved. We have no real liberty.

 

[squint]

Petros was still Petros.
Dave

And Cephas was still Cephas. imho Paul delivered a great deal of admonishment therein with his OLD NAME and also in Galatians where "Cephas" stood condemned.

"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I protested and opposed him to his face, for he was blameable and stood condemned." (Gal. 2:11)

Imagine that. One who seemed to be a pillar, and no doubt an Apostle, acting as a hypocrite.

Definitely old man territory.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Scripture says that it does not contasin all that Jesus taught.

Nope.

Scripture also says to keep not only the written but also the oral tradition of the Apostles.

... and we do. It's the oral tradition of the RCC that is not always "kept." Apples and oranges. The Bible says NOTHING about the tradition of the RCC.

Do you mind clarifying this?

Clarifying what?







.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Certainly not in Mt. 16. There, Jesus said, "Thou art 'Petros,' the same nickname Jesus gave him in Jn. 1. Jesus did NOT say, 'Thou art petra' (common noun) nor did He say, as to Abram, 'From now on your name shall be Abraham, or to Jacob, 'You have prevailed with God and man,' changing his name to Israel. Petros was still Petros.

Dave

Where things are placed are important in the books of scripture. Consider that Matthew was written to be read on it's own and to the Jews. Consider that...

 

[JacktheCatholic]

And Cephas was still Cephas. imho Paul delivered a great deal of admonishment therein with his OLD NAME and also in Galatians where "Cephas" stood condemned.

"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I protested and opposed him to his face, for he was blameable and stood condemned." (Gal. 2:11)

Imagine that. One who seemed to be a pillar, and no doubt an Apostle, acting as a hypocrite.

Definitely old man territory.

Paul did not receive a new name. He had a name with the Jews and another with Rome. This was common place in those times. Jesus never gave Paul a name.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Paul did not receive a new name. He had a name with the Jews and another with Rome. This was common place in those times. Jesus never gave Paul a name.

Greetings. I have a thread on that over here

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7287770
Why was Saul also Paul in Acts 1

Jonah 1:3 But Jonah arose to flee to Tarshish/08659 Tarshiysh from the presence of the LORD. He went down to Joppa, and found a ship going to Tarshish; so he paid the fare, and went down into it, to go with them to Tarshish from the presence of the LORD.

Acts 21:39 But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus/tarseuV <5018>, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Greetings. I have a thread on that over here

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7287770
Why was Saul also Paul in Acts 1

Jonah 1:3 But Jonah arose to flee to Tarshish/08659 Tarshiysh from the presence of the LORD. He went down to Joppa, and found a ship going to Tarshish; so he paid the fare, and went down into it, to go with them to Tarshish from the presence of the LORD.

Acts 21:39 But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus/tarseuV <5018>, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.

Shameful plugging of other threads.