Where does the Pope get his authority?

[Augustin56]

No man is reigning, governing on earth in Jesus' place currently over His church!!!

Matthew 28:18,
- and Jesus came up and spoke to them saying ALL AUTHORITY has been given to ME in heaven and on earth

Ephesians 1:20-23,
- this Power He exercised in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Jesus at the right hand in heavenly realms
far above every rule and authority and power and dominion and every name that is named not only in THIS AGE but also in the one to come,
and God put ALL THINGS under Christs feet and gave Jesus TO THE CHURCH AS THE HEAD OVER ALL, ALL, ALL, THINGS
Now the church is His body the fullness of Him who fills all in all

Did you read my explanation of the office of Pope and the authority given the office by Christ? Or were you just not capable of understanding it. I can try a simpler approach, if you like. You really should try to understand.

 

[Marvelloustime]

true it is i am on ignore by many . For years this has been the case , and yet for years i refuse to conform .
BIBLE TIME jude . BIBLE TIME .

That’s right. Let the Lord be praised and thanked. Yes, it is Bible time.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

That’s right. Let the Lord be praised and thanked. Yes, it is Bible time.

Yes, it's Bible time.
Jesus established his Church on St. Peter as the foundation. That’s why he renamed him — and only him — “Rock” (the meaning of Peter). Moreover, he gave only to him the “keys of the kingdom of heaven,” which harks back to Isaiah 22, as many Protestant commentators fully recognize. When one person is singled out like that, it means something very significant. If we want to express the notion that someone is a leader of something, to say that that thing was “built” on this person, as its foundation, is quite strong. Peter is “the man.”

Renowned Protestant Bible scholar F. F. Bruce wrote in The Hard Sayings of Jesus:

The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or majordomo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him … in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward.

And if Peter was the leader of the Church at its beginning, why should there not be successors to him, just as with any other organization? Why should the Church be different? We’re to believe that it had a leader for 30-40 years, till Peter was martyred, and then, no more leader? That makes no sense.

If we come to believe that the Bible asserts a leader of the Church, then it seems to me that it follows straightforwardly in logic and common sense that this leader would have successors and that the office would exist in perpetuity. When Judas defected and killed himself, the disciples chose a successor, Matthias (Acts 1:20-26), and the Bible actually uses the word episkopos (“bishop”) to describe the office involved (a key argument for apostolic succession). So why wouldn’t Peter, similarly, also have a successor? How is that parallel or analogy overcome?

Jesus, when talking to Peter in John 21, used an agricultural shepherd and sheep parallel, which is a metaphor for being a pastor. The word “shepherd” is used 15 times in the New Testament in this fashion. In John 21, Jesus was with seven of the disciples (John 21:2) in a post-Resurrection appearance. But he singled out Peter and charged him to “feed my lambs” (21:15) and “tend my sheep” (21:16) and “feed my sheep” (21:17), which could quite plausibly be taken to mean his entire Church, since he uses the words “the sheep” or “sheep” 14 times in John 10, meaning, believers in the Church. There he was talking about himself as the Ultimate Shepherd. But there are also earthly shepherds (pastors or priests or bishops). Jesus didn’t say this to all seven disciples present. He said it to Peter only. That must have some significance.

If it meant no more than “be a pastor of whatever congregation you have” then it would have been expressed to all. But because it was meant to be an exhortation to feed all the sheep, it was directed toward Peter only. It fits into the scenario of Peter being the leader of the Church.

Protestants often argue that the Church fathers taught that Peter was singled out and asked three times if he loved Jesus, because he denied Jesus three times. That may very well be true, but if so, it doesn’t follow that my interpretation is null and void. He still encouraged him to be a pastor of what is arguably the entire Church. Moreover, the parallel to the denials would be when Jesus asked him three times, “Do you love me?” But the other parts about feeding sheep and lambs are not parallels to the denials. Both things can simultaneously be true, without contradiction.

Peter’s faith, as I have noted several times in my writings, failed for maybe 10-15 minutes, when he made his denials in the face of possible imprisonment or death (i.e., strong coercion or danger). He lost his nerve. Then he heard the cock crow and immediately repented.

Contrast that with Paul, who was persecuting and killing Christians for an extended period of time, and had to be more or less forced by God to repent. Peter wasn’t constantly wavering in his faith. He wasn’t doubting Thomas. He wasn’t any worse than the other disciples (only one, St. John, was with Jesus at the crucifixion). He seemed to have the most understanding and zeal among the disciples before Pentecost. Peter was the one (not the others) who jumped into the stormy sea with Jesus, to walk on the water, etc. Sure, he sank soon after, but at least he jumped in in the first place.

We see the same sort of thing in Luke 22:32, where Jesus says, “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail” and “strengthen your brethren” to Peter alone. I believe it’s the only time Jesus is said to have prayed for one person, who is named, and once again it’s Peter. This was at the Last Supper, with all the disciples present.

Why does Jesus say this only to Peter, then? That’s the significance. If Peter wasn’t special and the leader, it seems to me that he would have said it to all of them. After all, most of his words at the Last Supper were directed to all of his disciples. Jesus said this and prayed for Peter precisely because he was the leader, which was also indicated by the verse preceding: “Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat” (22:31). Why Peter? Why not all of the disciples? It’s because — as always! — Peter was the leader.

That’s why Satan was after him: so much so that Luke made it a note to record that Jesus prayed specifically for him. Satan thought he had defeated Jesus, so Peter was the next target, because the devil foolishly thought he could root out Christianity by killing its leaders.

What the Bible Says About the Pope

“The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, ‘is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.’” (CCC 882)

www.ncregister.com

 

[BreadOfLife]

A very clever exposition of error. The question you need to answer, is what is the fruit of such a belief? How does accepting such a belief impact on one's understanding of Jesus and His sinlessness? And finally, the whole justification is not built on a "thus saith the Lord", but on the basis of symbols and signs and human surmising.

If it’s an exposition of “error” – then you must be able to easily-refute it Scripturally.

Go ahead . . .

And that from a church that relies more on tradition than it does scripture, and willing to adjust scripture to suit theories, such as in
KJV Genesis 3:15
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel....
Genesis 3:15
[15]I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. Douay Rhiems

WRONG.
The Church holds Scripture and Sacred Tradition on the same level, as they are BOTH revelations of God's Word.

As for Gen. 3:15 - actually, the more accurate translation is “They”, as used in the NABRE – not “He” or “She”.

The definition of the Hebrew word (huw') means both “He and “She”. This is used in some translations with the idea that, whereas Jesus is the Woman’s seed – the Church, in a more broad sense, is also her offspring.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Where in Matthew 16:18-19 Does Jesus refer to Peter as the Head or pope of HIS church?

You are inserting catholic doctrine into the text when the text says nothing about a pope.

Matthew 16:13-18;19

Peter makes his public REVELATION that Jesus is the Christ The God.
Jesus tells Peter this knowledge could only come from knowing God not from the world.

Peter means stone Greek (petros) it is a PIECE of rock
The other Greek word rock (petra) large mass of rock

Here are the two Greek words used in Scripture,

Gods wrath is displayed men hide themselves in petra large rock,
Rev. 6:15-17

The foundation of the wise mans house was a petra, a large mass of rock not a petros a small stone.
Matthew 7:24,
-
Also petra refers to rocks split at Jesus' death, Matthew 27:51
The tomb of Jesus was petra (large rock) Matthew 27:60

Peter(petros, tiny rock) cannot be the rock which Jesus will build His house, church.

Some believe Jesus is the rock in Matthew 16:18-19.

The rock is the revelation from Peter's mouth in verse 16

The parallel between verses 16,17,18 illustrates the identity of this rock to which Jesus refers

1Corinthians 3:11,
- for no other foundation(a large foundation stone) can anyone lay than that which is laid which is Jesus Christ

Ephesians 2:20,
- having been built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone

Jesus pronounced Himself the builder of His church,
Matthew 16:18,
- I will build My(Jesus) church

- Jesus said to them, But who do you say that I am?

- Simon Peter answered and said,
You are the Christ, the Son of the living God

- Jesus answered and said to him,
Blessed are you Simon Bar- Jonah for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but My Father who is in heaven

- And I also say to you that you are Peter(petros, tiny rock) and on this rock(Peter's spoken revelation that Jesus is deity)

I will build(Jesus is the petra, large unmovable boulder the foundation of the church)

My (Jesus) church, and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it

Verse 19,
- and I will give you(Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven

The keys are the saving gospel message that Jesus has entrusted to Peter to preach to the whole world.
This gospel preaches the church/Kingdom and the saving power of Christ crucified

Conclusion:
No where is Peter appointed the Head of the church as pope by Jesus in these verses.

The catholics have been abusing the words of Jesus to fit their heresy of potentate into the church.

Peter cannot be appointed Head of the church.

Colossians 1:18,
- and Jesus is the  Head of the body the church who is the beginning the firstborn from the dead that in all things He may have the PREEMINENCE

Where in Matthew 16:18-19 Does Jesus refer to Peter as the Head or pope of HIS church?

You are inserting catholic doctrine into the text when the text says nothing about a pope.

Matthew 16:13-18;19

Peter makes his public REVELATION that Jesus is the Christ The God.
Jesus tells Peter this knowledge could only come from knowing God not from the world.

Peter means stone Greek (petros) it is a PIECE of rock
The other Greek word rock (petra) large mass of rock

Here are the two Greek words used in Scripture,

Gods wrath is displayed men hide themselves in petra large rock,
Rev. 6:15-17

The foundation of the wise mans house was a petra, a large mass of rock not a petros a small stone.
Matthew 7:24,
-
Also petra refers to rocks split at Jesus' death, Matthew 27:51
The tomb of Jesus was petra (large rock) Matthew 27:60

Peter(petros, tiny rock) cannot be the rock which Jesus will build His house, church.

Some believe Jesus is the rock in Matthew 16:18-19.

The rock is the revelation from Peter's mouth in verse 16

The parallel between verses 16,17,18 illustrates the identity of this rock to which Jesus refers

1Corinthians 3:11,
- for no other foundation(a large foundation stone) can anyone lay than that which is laid which is Jesus Christ

Ephesians 2:20,
- having been built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone

Jesus pronounced Himself the builder of His church,
Matthew 16:18,
- I will build My(Jesus) church

- Jesus said to them, But who do you say that I am?

- Simon Peter answered and said,
You are the Christ, the Son of the living God

- Jesus answered and said to him,
Blessed are you Simon Bar- Jonah for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but My Father who is in heaven

- And I also say to you that you are Peter(petros, tiny rock) and on this rock(Peter's spoken revelation that Jesus is deity)

I will build(Jesus is the petra, large unmovable boulder the foundation of the church)

My (Jesus) church, and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it

Verse 19,
- and I will give you(Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven

The keys are the saving gospel message that Jesus has entrusted to Peter to preach to the whole world.
This gospel preaches the church/Kingdom and the saving power of Christ crucified

Conclusion:
No where is Peter appointed the Head of the church as pope by Jesus in these verses.

The catholics have been abusing the words of Jesus to fit their heresy of potentate into the church.

Peter cannot be appointed Head of the church.

Colossians 1:18,
- and Jesus is the  Head of the body the church who is the beginning the firstborn from the dead that in all things He may have the PREEMINENCE

Time for a Bibe Lesson and a Linguistics Lesson . . .

First of all, you need to remember that Jesus and the Apostles didn’t speak Greek to each other. They spoke Aramaic. In Aramaic, the word for “Rock” is “Kepha”, period There is NO distinction between large or small rock. The NT was written in Greek because that was the lingua franca of the day. Everybody from different countries communicated in Greek.

The Matthew uses “Petros” when referring to Peter is because it is a masculine noun. “Petra” is a feminine noun.
He would never have referred to Peter as “Petra” – which would be like calling him “Patricia”.

Jesus gave him a threefold blessing:

1. “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

2. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

3. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

According to YOU – Jesus blesses Peter, then insults him, then blesses him again:

1. “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

2. And I tell you that you are an insignificant pebble, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

3. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

You need to do some homework . . .

 

[Titus]

history and theology say it is.

catholic history and catholic theology says it, and therefore it must be true

Catholics don't claim Peter and his successors replace Jesus, your presupposition is false and very annoying.

Perverting the word is quite annoying

Matthew 16:18-19,
Not once did Jesus say Peter is the Head of the church only catholics made it up.
You do replace Jesus, WITH PETER AS THE HEAD OF CHRISTS CHURCH!!!
You dont even pay attention to your own teaching!!! Read it below!!!

We don't need to use the word "head" TO SHOW THAT PETER WAS GIVEN AUTHORITY OVER CHRIST'S CHURCH. We need only show the principle

You do need the word Head, you just make stuff up!

Next error by Thaddeus below,

Yes, the King of Kings chose a man to HELP HIM RULE OVER THE KINGDOM ON EARTH

Nowhere found in any new testament passage, more catholic heresy,
Matthew 28:18,
- and Jesus came and spoke to them, saying ALL, ALL, ALL, ALL, ALL, AUTHORITY has
been given ME(Jesus) in heaven and ON EARTH

Jesus clearly GAVE HIS AUTHORITY to teach and baptize to weak human beings.

Baptizing and teaching is done under JESUS' AUTHORITY NOT PETER OR MADE UP FAKE CATHOLIC APOSTLES. More catholic heresy

Every single new testament baptism is done IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, Acts 2:38.
That means by JESUS' AUTHORITY WE ARE BAPTIZED.

Show me one passage that says in the name of Peter for baptizing?
1Corinthians 1:13,
- is Christ divided was Paul crucified for you were you baptized in the name of Paul God forbid

Time for a Bibe Lesson and a Linguistics Lesson . . .

First of all, you need to remember that Jesus and the Apostles didn’t speak Greek to each other.

You are either a lying deciever or very ignorant of 1st, century Jewish culture.

Michael O Wise "Languages of Palestine in dictionary of Jesus and the gospels
By Joel B. Green
Scot Mcknight
Dowers Grove: Intervarsity
Press 1992

Also Read
Joseph A. Fitzmyer
" Did Jesus Speak Greek "
1992

Stanley E. Porter
" The Language Of The New Testament "
Classic Essays ( Sheffield: Academic Press 1991

All of the hand picked Apostles were from Galilee,

Guess what?
The predominant language in Galilee in the 1st. Century was Koine Greek and Aramaic

Jews were trilingual

And isnt it strange that All the new testament documents were written in Greek? Huh?

The common language in Galilee and Judea was Koine greek.

Aramaic was NOT the dominant language.

Why is it if Jesus and His disciples did not speak Greek that they HAD GREEK NAMES!!!!
Andrew
Philip
Nicodemus
Theophilus

Greek customs were adopted by the Jews

On Jewish Ossuaries(a site, building made to serve as resting place for the dead)
On these Jewish ossuaries were etched, carved into the site, GREEK WORDS

Greek was used in oral and written form by Jesus and disciples.

Matthew 22:29,
- Jesus answered and said to them,
You do err not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God

 

[Titus]

The Matthew uses “Petros” when referring to Peter is because it is a masculine noun. “Petra” is a feminine noun.
He would never have referred to Peter as “Petra” – which would be like calling him “Patricia

Exactly, that's why catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 has nothing to do with Peter being appointed Head of the church.

Matthew 16:18-19,
- I also say to you that you are Peter(petros, large rock)
and on this rock( Peter's confession that was a revelation that Jesus is God)
and on this rock (petra , little rock, pebble)

The revelation Peter made about Jesus being the Son of God is petra little rock!!!!

Peter is petros Large rock face, boulder etc.

So the confession of Peter is what Jesus is building His church on NOT PETER HIMSELF!!!

- I also now say to you that you are Peter(petros) and on this ROCK(petra, confession) I will build My church and the gates of hades will not prevail against it.

I sincerely thankyou for your honesty about the correct Greek words used here in Matthew 16:18-19.
I'm very surprised you did not do what every catholic before have done and changed the confession Revelation of Peter to (petros meaning Peter, which is a perversion of the word.
Thanks BreadofLife,
Love you

 

[Titus]

Where in Matthew 16:18-19 Does Jesus refer to Peter as the Head or pope of HIS church?

You are inserting catholic doctrine into the text when the text says nothing about a pope.

Matthew 16:13-18;19

Peter makes his public REVELATION that Jesus is the Christ The God.
Jesus tells Peter this knowledge could only come from knowing God not from the world.

Peter means stone Greek (petros) it is a PIECE of rock
The other Greek word rock (petra) large mass of rock

Here are the two Greek words used in Scripture,

Gods wrath is displayed men hide themselves in petra large rock,
Rev. 6:15-17

The foundation of the wise mans house was a petra, a large mass of rock not a petros a small stone.
Matthew 7:24,
-
Also petra refers to rocks split at Jesus' death, Matthew 27:51
The tomb of Jesus was petra (large rock) Matthew 27:60

Peter(petros, tiny rock) cannot be the rock which Jesus will build His house, church.

Some believe Jesus is the rock in Matthew 16:18-19.

The rock is the revelation from Peter's mouth in verse 16

The parallel between verses 16,17,18 illustrates the identity of this rock to which Jesus refers

1Corinthians 3:11,
- for no other foundation(a large foundation stone) can anyone lay than that which is laid which is Jesus Christ

Ephesians 2:20,
- having been built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone

Jesus pronounced Himself the builder of His church,
Matthew 16:18,
- I will build My(Jesus) church

- Jesus said to them, But who do you say that I am?

- Simon Peter answered and said,
You are the Christ, the Son of the living God

- Jesus answered and said to him,
Blessed are you Simon Bar- Jonah for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but My Father who is in heaven

- And I also say to you that you are Peter(petros, tiny rock) and on this rock(Peter's spoken revelation that Jesus is deity)

I will build(Jesus is the petra, large unmovable boulder the foundation of the church)

My (Jesus) church, and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it

Verse 19,
- and I will give you(Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven

The keys are the saving gospel message that Jesus has entrusted to Peter to preach to the whole world.
This gospel preaches the church/Kingdom and the saving power of Christ crucified

Conclusion:
No where is Peter appointed the Head of the church as pope by Jesus in these verses.

The catholics have been abusing the words of Jesus to fit their heresy of potentate into the church.

Peter cannot be appointed Head of the church.

Colossians 1:18,
- and Jesus is the  Head of the body the church who is the beginning the firstborn from the dead that in all things He may have the PREEMINENCE

I've made some errors in the above post,
Peter is Greek petros not petra

Greek word for rock is used twice in Matthew 16:18-19

-thou art Peter(petros) and on this rock(petra)
Sorry for the confusion.
I have no idea how I made such a mess.
Regardless the mistakes omitted is Biblically sound

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Exactly, that's why catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 has nothing to do with Peter being appointed Head of the church.

Michael O Wise "Languages of Palestine in dictionary of Jesus and the gospels
By Joel B. Green
Scot Mcknight
Dowers Grove: Intervarsity
Press 1992

Also Read
Joseph A. Fitzmyer
" Did Jesus Speak Greek "
1992

Stanley E. Porter
" The Language Of The New Testament "
Classic Essays ( Sheffield: Academic Press 1991

None of your sources say Peter was not leader of the Church. Joel B. Green is a Calvinist, and Joseph A. Fitzmyer is a Jesuit priest, and Stanley E. Porter is a NT scholar, a prof in my city, who would never support you claims. I checked your sources. For example: (brows the pages of the book by clicking on the page number icon in the upper right)

Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels

ECPA Christian Book Award Winner Readers' Choice Award Winner Biblical Foundations Award WinnerPreaching's Preacher's Guide to the Best Bible ReferenceThe second edition of the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels is a thoroughly reconstructed and revised version of the critically acclaimed 1992...

books.google.ca

Jesus is dying on the cross. 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?”
That doesn't even look Greek. It's Aramaic. And Cephas is of Aramaic origin. Why would Paul use an Aramaic name for Peter to Greek speaking communities??? Why not Petros? Your denials don't hold water.

Atheists use the same argument against Jesus' divinity as you do about Peter being head of the Church. The Bible uses "body" as a metaphor for the earthly church. You have a body with no earthly head. The end result is thousands of opposing theologies and cant agree on much of anything, except that God exists and you are not Catholic. That's about it.

​

◄ 2786. Képhas ►

​

Strong's Concordance Képhas: "a rock," Cephas, a name given to the apostle Peter​ Original Word: Κηφᾶς, ᾶ, ὁ Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine Transliteration: Képhas Phonetic Spelling: (kay-fas') Definition: "a rock", Cephas, a name given to the apostle Peter Usage: Cephas (Aramaic for rock), the new name given to Simon Peter, the apostle. NAS Exhaustive Concordance Word Origin of Aramaic origin Definition "a rock," Cephas, a name given to the apostle Peter NASB Translation Cephas (9). Strong's concordance is not "Catholic"

Matthew 16:18-19- I also say to you that you are Peter(petros, large rock)
and on this rock( Peter's confession that was a revelation that Jesus is God)
and on this rock (petra , little rock, pebble)

The revelation Peter made about Jesus being the Son of God is petra little rock!!!!

Peter is petros Large rock face, boulder etc.

So the confession of Peter is what Jesus is building His church on NOT PETER HIMSELF!!!

- I also now say to you that you are Peter(petros) and on this ROCK(petra, confession) I will build My church and the gates of hades will not prevail against it.

I sincerely thankyou for your honesty about the correct Greek words used here in Matthew 16:18-19.
I'm very surprised you did not do what every catholic before have done and changed the confession Revelation of Peter to (petros meaning Peter, which is a perversion of the word.
Thanks BreadofLife,
Love you

That's a stale outdated argument. You are in disagreement with a long list of PROTESTANT scholars who outgrew their prejudices.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

NONE OF THE FOLLOWING SOURCES ON MATTHEW 16:18 ARE CATHOLIC:

Matthew 16:18 “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

New Bible Dictionary
“. . . That the rock is Peter himself . . . is found almost as early as the other [interpretation], for Tertullian and the bishop, whether Roman or Carthaginian, against whom he thundered in De Pudicitia, assume this, though with different inferences. Its strength lies in the fact that Mt 16:19 is in the singular, and must be addressed directly to Peter . . . Many Protestant interpreters, including notably Cullmann, take the latter view.” (4: 972)

B. Word Studies in the New Testament (Vincent)
“The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter’s confession, but to Peter himself, . . . The reference of `petra’ to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: `On this rock will I build.’ Again, Christ is the great foundation, the `chief cornerstone,’ but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ’s church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Pet 2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and in ver. 5, addresses the church as living stones . . .

“Equally untenable is the explanation which refers `petra’ to Simon’s confession. Both the play upon the words and the natural reading of the passage are against it, and besides, it does not conform to the fact, since the church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors – living men . . .
“The reference to Simon himself is confirmed by the actual relation of Peter to the early church . . . See Acts 1:15; 2:14,37; 3:2; 4:8; 5:15,29; 9:34,40; 10:25-6; Gal 1:18.” (11; v.1: 91-92)C.

C. Encyclopaedia Britannica (1985)
“Though in the past some authorities have considered that the term rock refers to Jesus himself or to Peter’s faith, the consensus of the great majority of scholars today is that the most obvious and traditional understanding should be construed, namely, that rock refers to the person of Peter.” (1)

D. Wycliffe Bible Commentary
“Another view common among some Protestants (Alford, Broadus, Vincent) is that Peter . . . is the rock.” (7: 959)

E. New Bible Commentary
“Some interpreters have . . . referred to Jesus as the rock here, but the context is against this. Nor is it likely that Peter’s faith or Peter’s confession is meant. It is undoubtedly Peter himself who is to be the rock, but Peter confessing, faithful and obedient . . . The leading role which Peter played is shown throughout the early chapters of Acts.” (6: 837)

F. Anchor Bible (William F. Albright and C. S. Mann)
“In view of the background of verse 19 . . . one must dismiss as confessional interpretation [i.e., biased by denominational views] any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession of Peter . . . The general sense of the passage is indisputable . . . Peter is the rock on which the new community will be built, and in that community, Peter’s authority to `bind’ or `release’ will be a carrying out of decisions made in heaven. His teaching and disciplinary activities will be similarly guided by the Spirit to carry out Heaven’s will.” (2)

G. Robert McAfee Brown
“Protestants are learning that the crucial passage in Matthew 16 about the `rock’ on which the church will be built almost certainly refers to Peter himself rather than to his faith.” (3)

H. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (R. T. France)
“Jesus now sums up Peter’s significance in a name, Peter . . .It describes not so much Peter’s character (he did not prove to be `rock-like’ in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus’ church. The feminine word for `rock’, `petra’, is necessarily changed to the masculine `petros’ (stone) to give a man’s name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form `kepha’ would occur in both places). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the `rock’ here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as v.16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus . . . It is to Peter, not to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied . . .
“Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus’ new community . . . which will last forever.” (4)

I. Expositor’s Bible Commentary (D. A. Carson)
“On the basis of the distinction between `petros’ . . . and `petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere`stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the `rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken `rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . .
“The Greek makes the distinction between `petros’ and `petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine “petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . .
“Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been `lithos’ )`stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun – and that is just the point! . . .
“In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (5)

J. Peter in the New Testament - Stendahl in Peake’s Commentary on the Bible (2nd rev. ed.; London: Nelson, 1962), p.787.” (6)
“Precisely because of the Aramaic identity of `Kepha’/`kepha’, there can be no doubt that the rock on which the church was to be built was Peter. Is this true also for Matthew in whose Greek there is the slight difference `Petros’/`petra’? Probably the most common view would be that it is . . . It would be pointless to list all the commentaries holding this view, but it is found in [a] popular one-volume commentary .

K. Richard Baumann
“Luther . . . took his rejection of the Petrine office from his erroneous interpretation of Christ’s saying in Matthew 16 . . . But today we recognize Luther’s error and give it up. `Anti-Catholic polemic has done violence to the Lord’s saying because it defines the Rock upon which Jesus builds His community not as Peter but as his faith and confession . . . What is spoken of, however, in Matthew 16 is the man to whom Jesus entrusts His work, (7)’ writes the Protestant theologian Adolf Schlatter.” (8)

Shall I go on to fill another page?

 

[Brakelite]

WRONG.
The Church holds Scripture and Sacred Tradition on the same level, as they are BOTH revelations of God's Word.

Perhaps, except when tradition contradicts scripture, then tradition has the final say right? Scripture is interpreted in the light of tradition, not the other way round.

If it’s an exposition of “error” – then you must be able to easily-refute it Scripturally.

Go ahead . . .

Name me one instance in scripture where the woman in Revelation 12 is interpreted as a symbol of Mary. And I mean where scripture itself does the interpreting, not you or your church. For every one you produce, I will show you 3 where women in prophecy are a symbol for the church... Both in the old and new testaments.
Here's something to start with...
KJV Jeremiah 6:2
2 I have likened the daughter of Zion (the church) to a comely and delicate woman.
The above was when Israel was faithful and committed to the Lord. When they fell away, into idolatry, as was often the case, the prophecy went more like this...
KJV Jeremiah 2:20
20 For of old time I have broken thy yoke, and burst thy bands; and thou saidst, I will not transgress; when upon every high hill and under every green tree thou wanderest, playing the harlot.

Let me ask you some questions.
When did "Mary" spend 1260 days in the wilderness after Jesus was caught up to His throne? (Revel. 12:6)
Who fed her there? (Revel. 12:6)
When did Satan persecute her, and in what form did that take? (Revel 12:13)
What do the wings of the great eagle signify that caused her to fly?
Are the times, time, and half a time the same time span as the 1260 days? (12:14)
What was the flood that Satan cast out of his mouth after the woman?
How did the earth protect her, and where? (12:14,-16)
Who is the remnant of her seed that keep the Commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus, which according to Revelation 19:10 is the spirit of prophecy?
Finally, if the woman of Revelation 12 is Mary, who then is her arch enemy, the woman in Revelation 17 and 18?

.

 

[amigo de christo]

The walk in Christ is simple but man and his institutions make complicated the simple walk by their own precepts
and twist doctrine unto their own destruction . Let us learn Christ well . Be in the bible and in prayer .

 

[Behold]

The walk in Christ is simple but man and his institutions make complicated the simple walk by their own precepts
and twist doctrine unto their own destruction . Let us learn Christ well . Be in the bible and in prayer .

GOD makes... CHRISTians.


MAN makes : Denominations

 

[Titus]

None of your sources say Peter was not leader of the Church

That has absolutely nothing to do with those scholars books.
The reason those sources were posted is to prove that Jesus and the Jews in the 1st, century SPOKE GREEK, TAUGHT IN GREEK AND WROTE IN GREEK.

BreadofLife claimed none of the apostles or Jews spoke Greek in the 1st. Century. An extraordinarily ignorant statement.

First of all, you need to remember that Jesus and the Apostles didn’t speak Greek to each other. They spoke Aramaic. In Aramaic, the word for “Rock” is “Kepha”, period There is NO distinction between large or small rock. The NT was written in Greek because that was the lingua franca of the day. Everybody from different countries communicated in Greek

So, I don't care if those men did or did not believe whether Peter was or was not the Head of the church. That's not the point for why I posted them.
What is the point is those men ALL agree that the new testament was written in greek.

The ancient manuscripts of the new testament were written in greek.

You are either intentionally hiding the truth to support your perverted position that Peter's confession
Was not the confession but Peter himself or you are ignorant.
Which is it?

Since Matthew 16:18-19 is the Greek words petros and petra we can know what Jesus built His church on
Peter himself?
Or
Peter's confession the revelation that Jesus is God.

Jesus built His church on the revelation from Peter's mouth that Jesus is God.

This disproves catholics misinterpretation that Jesus is appointing Peter as Head by building or establishing the church on earth with Peter as the authority over it.

Matthew 16:18-19,
- I also say to you that you are Peter(petros, masculine) and on this rock(petra, feminine) I will build My church...

So Jesus will build His church on petra, feminine AS BREADOFLIFE ALREADY ADMITTED IT CANNOT BE PETER OTHERWISE JESUS WAS CALLING PETER BY A GIRLS NAME. Read Your own catholic brothers teaching, below,

The Matthew uses “Petros” when referring to Peter is because it is a masculine noun. “Petra” is a feminine noun.
He would never have referred to Peter as “Petra” – which would be like calling him “Patricia”

Conclusion: Jesus built His church on the REVELATION FROM PETERS MOUTH THAT JESUS IS GOD.
The catholic interpretation is heresy,
Catholic: Jesus built His church on Peter himself.


The Bible is as clear as the nose on your face that Jesus is the HEAD OF THE CHURCH ON EARTH,

Matthew 28:18,
- and Jesus came and spoke to them saying, ALL AUTHORITY has been given to Me in heaven and on
EARTH

 

[Titus]

That's a stale outdated argument. You are in disagreement with a long list of PROTESTANT scholars who outgrew their prejudices.

I could care less what protestant's think.
I'm not a protestant I am a member the the Lords church, the one in the new testament.
The only church that came before the great harlot.

I go by what Inspired men teach. That is only the apostles doctrine,
Acts 2:42,
- and the Christians continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine....

 

[Titus]

NONE OF THE FOLLOWING SOURCES ON MATTHEW 16:18 ARE CATHOLIC:

Matthew 16:18 “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

New Bible Dictionary
“. . . That the rock is Peter himself . . . is found almost as early as the other [interpretation], for Tertullian and the bishop, whether Roman or Carthaginian, against whom he thundered in De Pudicitia, assume this, though with different inferences. Its strength lies in the fact that Mt 16:19 is in the singular, and must be addressed directly to Peter . . . Many Protestant interpreters, including notably Cullmann, take the latter view.” (4: 972)

B. Word Studies in the New Testament (Vincent)
“The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter’s confession, but to Peter himself, . . . The reference of `petra’ to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: `On this rock will I build.’ Again, Christ is the great foundation, the `chief cornerstone,’ but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ’s church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Pet 2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and in ver. 5, addresses the church as living stones . . .

“Equally untenable is the explanation which refers `petra’ to Simon’s confession. Both the play upon the words and the natural reading of the passage are against it, and besides, it does not conform to the fact, since the church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors – living men . . .
“The reference to Simon himself is confirmed by the actual relation of Peter to the early church . . . See Acts 1:15; 2:14,37; 3:2; 4:8; 5:15,29; 9:34,40; 10:25-6; Gal 1:18.” (11; v.1: 91-92)C.

C. Encyclopaedia Britannica (1985)
“Though in the past some authorities have considered that the term rock refers to Jesus himself or to Peter’s faith, the consensus of the great majority of scholars today is that the most obvious and traditional understanding should be construed, namely, that rock refers to the person of Peter.” (1)

D. Wycliffe Bible Commentary
“Another view common among some Protestants (Alford, Broadus, Vincent) is that Peter . . . is the rock.” (7: 959)

E. New Bible Commentary
“Some interpreters have . . . referred to Jesus as the rock here, but the context is against this. Nor is it likely that Peter’s faith or Peter’s confession is meant. It is undoubtedly Peter himself who is to be the rock, but Peter confessing, faithful and obedient . . . The leading role which Peter played is shown throughout the early chapters of Acts.” (6: 837)

F. Anchor Bible (William F. Albright and C. S. Mann)
“In view of the background of verse 19 . . . one must dismiss as confessional interpretation [i.e., biased by denominational views] any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession of Peter . . . The general sense of the passage is indisputable . . . Peter is the rock on which the new community will be built, and in that community, Peter’s authority to `bind’ or `release’ will be a carrying out of decisions made in heaven. His teaching and disciplinary activities will be similarly guided by the Spirit to carry out Heaven’s will.” (2)

G. Robert McAfee Brown
“Protestants are learning that the crucial passage in Matthew 16 about the `rock’ on which the church will be built almost certainly refers to Peter himself rather than to his faith.” (3)

H. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (R. T. France)
“Jesus now sums up Peter’s significance in a name, Peter . . .It describes not so much Peter’s character (he did not prove to be `rock-like’ in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus’ church. The feminine word for `rock’, `petra’, is necessarily changed to the masculine `petros’ (stone) to give a man’s name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form `kepha’ would occur in both places). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the `rock’ here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as v.16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus . . . It is to Peter, not to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied . . .
“Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus’ new community . . . which will last forever.” (4)

I. Expositor’s Bible Commentary (D. A. Carson)
“On the basis of the distinction between `petros’ . . . and `petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere`stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the `rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken `rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . .
“The Greek makes the distinction between `petros’ and `petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine “petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . .
“Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been `lithos’ )`stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun – and that is just the point! . . .
“In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (5)

J. Peter in the New Testament - Stendahl in Peake’s Commentary on the Bible (2nd rev. ed.; London: Nelson, 1962), p.787.” (6)
“Precisely because of the Aramaic identity of `Kepha’/`kepha’, there can be no doubt that the rock on which the church was to be built was Peter. Is this true also for Matthew in whose Greek there is the slight difference `Petros’/`petra’? Probably the most common view would be that it is . . . It would be pointless to list all the commentaries holding this view, but it is found in [a] popular one-volume commentary .

K. Richard Baumann
“Luther . . . took his rejection of the Petrine office from his erroneous interpretation of Christ’s saying in Matthew 16 . . . But today we recognize Luther’s error and give it up. `Anti-Catholic polemic has done violence to the Lord’s saying because it defines the Rock upon which Jesus builds His community not as Peter but as his faith and confession . . . What is spoken of, however, in Matthew 16 is the man to whom Jesus entrusts His work, (7)’ writes the Protestant theologian Adolf Schlatter.” (8)

Shall I go on to fill another page?

View attachment 45246

This is all uninspired men!!!

You catholics always try to prove your unbiblical interpretations NOT WITH BOOK, CHAPTER AND VERSE BUT WITH OUTSIDE SOURCES APART FROM THE BIBLE.

This entire post PROVES NOTHING


Commentaries are nothing but MANS OPINIONS

 

[Augustin56]

Perhaps, except when tradition contradicts scripture, then tradition has the final say right? Scripture is interpreted in the light of tradition, not the other way round.

Name me one instance in scripture where the woman in Revelation 12 is interpreted as a symbol of Mary. And I mean where scripture itself does the interpreting, not you or your church. For every one you produce, I will show you 3 where women in prophecy are a symbol for the church... Both in the old and new testaments.
Here's something to start with...
KJV Jeremiah 6:2
2 I have likened the daughter of Zion (the church) to a comely and delicate woman.
The above was when Israel was faithful and committed to the Lord. When they fell away, into idolatry, as was often the case, the prophecy went more like this...
KJV Jeremiah 2:20
20 For of old time I have broken thy yoke, and burst thy bands; and thou saidst, I will not transgress; when upon every high hill and under every green tree thou wanderest, playing the harlot.

Let me ask you some questions.
When did "Mary" spend 1260 days in the wilderness after Jesus was caught up to His throne? (Revel. 12:6)
Who fed her there? (Revel. 12:6)
When did Satan persecute her, and in what form did that take? (Revel 12:13)
What do the wings of the great eagle signify that caused her to fly?
Are the times, time, and half a time the same time span as the 1260 days? (12:14)
What was the flood that Satan cast out of his mouth after the woman?
How did the earth protect her, and where? (12:14,-16)
Who is the remnant of her seed that keep the Commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus, which according to Revelation 19:10 is the spirit of prophecy?
Finally, if the woman of Revelation 12 is Mary, who then is her arch enemy, the woman in Revelation 17 and 18?

.

Scripture and Tradition never contradict one another. Tradition preceded the New Testament in writing, and the New Testament was taken FROM Tradition. Tradition in this sense means "teaching" not "common practices." See 2 Thes 2:15, where St. Paul puts oral teaching (Tradition) on the same level of authority as written teaching (Scripture).

 

[amigo de christo]

GOD makes... CHRISTians.


MAN makes : Denominations

and satan himself
can indeed appear as an angel of LIGHT . though HE BE BUT DARKNESS .
He can use the word love, unity , freedom , liberty
He can use any word , but beware him for he is a flesh feeder indeed .
and many have fallen in love with his version of GOD and of love . Watch out . I shant cease to warn and to remind us all
watch and beware of men . For many have sipped of the love potion of the cup of the WHORE
and now do the bidding of the dark one and do so in the name of love itself . ONLY , IT AINT LOVE and IT AINT OF GOD either .

 

[Titus]

Scripture and Tradition never contradict one another

Translated,
Scripture and catholic church tradition never contradict one another.

That's funny

 

[amigo de christo]

Translated,
Scripture and catholic church tradition never contradict one another.

That's funny

a joke is funny . THAT IS A LIE as is the idea that many of these protestant leaders themselves SPIN unto their denominations
and all trapped within .
What i was shown way back in two thousand and eight , IS COMING TO PASS NOW IN RELENTLESS SPEED .
EVERYONE and ANYONE not in the lambs book of life
though many of them too used HIS NAME , THEY WILL MERGE AS ONE UNDER WHAT THEY THINK IS GOD AND IS LOVE .
false love has become their god now , false hope and a broad path has become their hope now .
AND THE JESUS of the BIBLE , the GOD OF THE BIBLE and the doctrine of the apostels
has become THEIR ENENEY. THUS all who stay grounded in the bible , ARE NOW THEIR ENEMY and this will get only worse .
HOW DO WE KNOW
HOW can a man KNOW
HOW shall a man KNOW whether or not HE IS SERVING GOD , HAS HIS LOVE , KNOWETH HIS CHRIST .
WELL if that love has set them against BIBLICAL TRUTH and doctrines , IT COMETH OF THE DEVIL NOT GOD .
IF it shuts down biblical truth , including the warnings against homosexuality , love of money ,
and the dire need to BELIEVE ON JESUS THE CHRIST , IT IS COMING NOT FROM GOD , NOT FROM CHRIST
not from THE SPIRIT . But is of ANTI CHRIST and shall and is merging them as ONE UNDER
NOT THE FATHER but the devil . and that be a serious fact .