Peter NOT the 1st pope and the keys of the kingdom

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

DJT_47

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2022
928
317
63
Michigan/Sterling Heights
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Peter NOT the 1st pope: Analysis Matthew 16 - Peter and the keys of the kingdom

Matthew 16 analysis - Peter being the first so-called pope and provided with the keys of the kingdom

Matthew 16:15-19 - Catholics erroneously use these verses, and primarily verse 19, as rationale and justification for claiming Peter was established thereby as the first pope. However, when you read and study these scriptures closely along with others related thereto, you clearly find that is not the case nor is the logic sound.

When linked with Matthew 18:18, Acts 2, Acts 10, and Acts 11, you get the complete and true understanding of the aforementioned Matthew 16 verses. Note Matthew 16:15-19 below:

15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18And 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. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Establishment of the church, the earthly kingdom - First of all in the above scripture, notice it says "keys of the kingdom of heaven" and not "to the kingdom of heaven" which is of significance and often glossed-over by most, with "to" being superimposed for “of”. The word "of" means, 'origin', 'connected to', 'belonging to', from' or "pertaining to', whereas 'to' infers 'direction', 'going toward' or 'entry into'; "to" therefore would imply entry into the kingdom whereas "of" would imply the keys are not for entry, but rather, originating from, for, or emanating and/or coming from the kingdom; the origin of the keys being the kingdom of heaven.

Peter was entrusted with the "keys of the kingdom of heaven”, not 'keys to’ the kingdom of heaven or simply for the means of entry into it, and was empowered or sanctioned by heaven as confirmed by the Holy Ghost (Acts 2 and 10), with authority to bind his actions as well. The same words almost verbatim are used in Matthew 18:18-19, providing all of the Lord's disciples with authority likewise to bind on earth, however the reasons were different for this authority which excluded the "keys of the kingdom", and the authority was provided to all the disciples (ye, in the original Greek) as opposed to just Peter (thee per the original Greek) in Matthew 16.

When you consider or link Matthew 16 as relates to Peter and "the keys of the kingdom" with the book of Acts, you find that Peter was the one responsible for establishing the church, the earthly kingdom, first amongst the Jews at Jerusalem (Acts2), and then amongst the Gentiles commencing with the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10), which action he then defended to the council at Jerusalem in Acts 11. Peter being the one that established the early church, is therefore validation of Matthew 16 and the Lord’s unique statement to him, creating the setting and providing him with the opportunity, wherewithal, and confirmation by heaven via the Holy Ghost to do so (collectively, “the keys”). Note too, that the Holy Ghost falling on individuals uniquely as it did on both occasions, were the only times recorded in the bible for such happening in the manner it did. Both events, that of Acts 2 and Acts 10, were done with heavenly power and authority as noted above, since in both cases, the Holy Ghost demonstrated said power and authority by its physical presence, falling on individuals in both cases as a sign to those present, giving validity to, and substantiation from heaven of Peter’s actions, consistent with the use of the word “of” in Matthew 16:19.

The rock - In Matthew 16:18, it's obvious that Peter isn't the rock but rather Christ is, since he is recognized as being the chief cornerstone and/or foundation per the scriptures (Ephesians 2:20, Psalm 118:22-23, Isaiah 28:16, Matthew 21:42-44, 1Cor 3:11, Acts 4:11). Also, Peter in Greek is 'Petros' Πέτρος or Cephas, [masculine gender in the Greek meaning a stone or boulder (Strong's), or rock, individual stone, more insecure or moveable], and the “rock” in Matthew 16:18 is “petra”, πέτρα (feminine gender in the Greek), being rock, cliff, solid formation, solid foundation, bedrock, large rock formation, immoveable and enduring. Also, the church is referred to as being the “bride”, “chaste virgin”, “her” (feminine), etc., and Christ being the bridegroom, which further substantiates the use of “petra” rather than “petros”. If Christ's intent was to build his church upon Peter, why wouldn't he have said "and upon you I will build my church", or “upon petros, or you, Petros I will build my church” and not "upon this rock" (petra)? Also note that if Peter was established as the so-called first pope and head of the church (as erroneously claimed by Catholics), 1. Why did the Lord say “get thee behind me Satan” to him in Matthew 16:23? and 2. Why did the disciples quarrel amongst themselves (Luke 9:46) as to who would be the greatest among them, which occurred AFTER Peter’s statement as to who Jesus was (Luke 9:20 and parallel verse Mat 16:16)? and 3. Why was there contention between Peter and Paul as recorded in Acts 15:2 and Gal 2:11-14 if Peter was the head of the church? and 4. Why did the council at Jerusalem send Peter and John to Samaria (Acts8:14) if Peter was the head of the church, yet taking direction from the council at Jerusalem? Also note that no man (in a religious sense, Mat 23:8-9), is to be called father on earth, yet the pope is commonly referred to as the “Holy Father”. And too, Christ is the head of the church which is his body, not Peter (Eph 5:23, Col 1:18)
 
  • Like
Reactions: face2face

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,942
3,391
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Here’s why you’re wrong -

Let’s start off with your “Peter is NOT the Rock” argument.
First of all – his name was Simon bar Johah. Jesus changed his name to Peter (Petros I Greek). However – Jesus didn’t speak Greek to His Apostle – He spoke Aramaic.
What he actually said was, “You are Kepha and on this Kepha, I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18).
There is NO differentiation in Aramaic between small rock and large rock. Kepha means “Rock”period.

Secondly – in his letters, Paul refers to him – NOT as Peter, but as Cephas, which is a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic, Kepha. Peter is indeed the “Rock” of Matt. 16:18 – just as Abraham is the “Rock” of Isaiah 51:1-2.

As to verse 19 – this is an almost verbatim fulfillment of the OT type of Eliakim in Isaiah 22:

Isaiah 22:20–22 - In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.


Finally – if Peter (Kepha) wasn’t in charge
a. Tell me WHY Jesus singled out Peter when He gave him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19) if did not put him in charge.

b. Tell me WHY Jesus asked Peter and Peter alone to feed His lambs and tend His sheep (John 21:15-19) if did not put him in charge.

c. Tell me WHY Jesus said that He prayed for Peter ALONE to strengthen the others and bring them back to faith (Luke 22:31-32) if did not put him in charge.

d. Tell me WHY Peter called "Protos" (First) in the Gospel (Matt. 10:2) if he was not in charge??

e. Tell me WHY Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Matt. 10:2; Mk 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13) if he was not in charge??

f. Tell me WHY Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mark 16:7) if he was not in charge??

g. Tell me WHY Peter takes the lead in calling for a successor for Judas (Acts 1:22) if He was not in charge??

h. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, making him the first Christian to preach the Gospel in the Church (Acts 2:14-36) if he was not in charge??

i. Tell me WHY Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12) if he was not in charge??

j. Tell me WHY Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11) if He was not in charge??

k. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40) if he was not in charge??

l. Tell me WHY Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6) if he was not in charge??

m. Tell me WHY Peter's name is mentioned more often than ALL the other disciples put together if He was not in charge??

n. Tell my WHY he is recognized as the chief Apostle by virtually EVERY Early Church Father.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marymog

face2face

Well-Known Member
Jun 22, 2015
4,777
636
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Peter NOT the 1st pope: Analysis Matthew 16 - Peter and the keys of the kingdom

Matthew 16 analysis - Peter being the first so-called pope and provided with the keys of the kingdom

Matthew 16:15-19 - Catholics erroneously use these verses, and primarily verse 19, as rationale and justification for claiming Peter was established thereby as the first pope. However, when you read and study these scriptures closely along with others related thereto, you clearly find that is not the case nor is the logic sound.

When linked with Matthew 18:18, Acts 2, Acts 10, and Acts 11, you get the complete and true understanding of the aforementioned Matthew 16 verses. Note Matthew 16:15-19 below:

15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18And 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. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Establishment of the church, the earthly kingdom - First of all in the above scripture, notice it says "keys of the kingdom of heaven" and not "to the kingdom of heaven" which is of significance and often glossed-over by most, with "to" being superimposed for “of”. The word "of" means, 'origin', 'connected to', 'belonging to', from' or "pertaining to', whereas 'to' infers 'direction', 'going toward' or 'entry into'; "to" therefore would imply entry into the kingdom whereas "of" would imply the keys are not for entry, but rather, originating from, for, or emanating and/or coming from the kingdom; the origin of the keys being the kingdom of heaven.

Peter was entrusted with the "keys of the kingdom of heaven”, not 'keys to’ the kingdom of heaven or simply for the means of entry into it, and was empowered or sanctioned by heaven as confirmed by the Holy Ghost (Acts 2 and 10), with authority to bind his actions as well. The same words almost verbatim are used in Matthew 18:18-19, providing all of the Lord's disciples with authority likewise to bind on earth, however the reasons were different for this authority which excluded the "keys of the kingdom", and the authority was provided to all the disciples (ye, in the original Greek) as opposed to just Peter (thee per the original Greek) in Matthew 16.

When you consider or link Matthew 16 as relates to Peter and "the keys of the kingdom" with the book of Acts, you find that Peter was the one responsible for establishing the church, the earthly kingdom, first amongst the Jews at Jerusalem (Acts2), and then amongst the Gentiles commencing with the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10), which action he then defended to the council at Jerusalem in Acts 11. Peter being the one that established the early church, is therefore validation of Matthew 16 and the Lord’s unique statement to him, creating the setting and providing him with the opportunity, wherewithal, and confirmation by heaven via the Holy Ghost to do so (collectively, “the keys”). Note too, that the Holy Ghost falling on individuals uniquely as it did on both occasions, were the only times recorded in the bible for such happening in the manner it did. Both events, that of Acts 2 and Acts 10, were done with heavenly power and authority as noted above, since in both cases, the Holy Ghost demonstrated said power and authority by its physical presence, falling on individuals in both cases as a sign to those present, giving validity to, and substantiation from heaven of Peter’s actions, consistent with the use of the word “of” in Matthew 16:19.

The rock - In Matthew 16:18, it's obvious that Peter isn't the rock but rather Christ is, since he is recognized as being the chief cornerstone and/or foundation per the scriptures (Ephesians 2:20, Psalm 118:22-23, Isaiah 28:16, Matthew 21:42-44, 1Cor 3:11, Acts 4:11). Also, Peter in Greek is 'Petros' Πέτρος or Cephas, [masculine gender in the Greek meaning a stone or boulder (Strong's), or rock, individual stone, more insecure or moveable], and the “rock” in Matthew 16:18 is “petra”, πέτρα (feminine gender in the Greek), being rock, cliff, solid formation, solid foundation, bedrock, large rock formation, immoveable and enduring. Also, the church is referred to as being the “bride”, “chaste virgin”, “her” (feminine), etc., and Christ being the bridegroom, which further substantiates the use of “petra” rather than “petros”. If Christ's intent was to build his church upon Peter, why wouldn't he have said "and upon you I will build my church", or “upon petros, or you, Petros I will build my church” and not "upon this rock" (petra)? Also note that if Peter was established as the so-called first pope and head of the church (as erroneously claimed by Catholics), 1. Why did the Lord say “get thee behind me Satan” to him in Matthew 16:23? and 2. Why did the disciples quarrel amongst themselves (Luke 9:46) as to who would be the greatest among them, which occurred AFTER Peter’s statement as to who Jesus was (Luke 9:20 and parallel verse Mat 16:16)? and 3. Why was there contention between Peter and Paul as recorded in Acts 15:2 and Gal 2:11-14 if Peter was the head of the church? and 4. Why did the council at Jerusalem send Peter and John to Samaria (Acts8:14) if Peter was the head of the church, yet taking direction from the council at Jerusalem? Also note that no man (in a religious sense, Mat 23:8-9), is to be called father on earth, yet the pope is commonly referred to as the “Holy Father”. And too, Christ is the head of the church which is his body, not Peter (Eph 5:23, Col 1:18)
Well done DJT.

The text is absolutely rock ;) solid that upon this man’s conviction that Jesus is the “Son of the Living God” the church is built Matt 16:16-18

You only need read Acts 2 to find the churches true foundation.

Note the depth of the reality of the “Untoward generation” in Acts 2:40 cmp Philippians 2:15 cmp Deuteronomy 32:5

Now check our the Rock for his true identity from which Peter is basing his comments in Acts 2.

Deuteronomy 32:4 As for the Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are just. He is a reliable God who is never unjust, he is fair and upright.

Compare

Deuteronomy 32:15 But Jeshurun became fat and kicked, you got fat, thick, and stuffed! Then he deserted the God who made him, and treated the Rock who saved him with contempt.

Deuteronomy 32:18 You have forgotten the Rock who fathered you, and put out of mind the God who gave you birth.

Deuteronomy 32:31 For our enemies’ rock is not like our Rock, as even our enemies concede.

The reality of this subject is seen in how the Rock is referenced in Deuteronomy and by Christ. Yahweh is Christ's Rock....Christ is our Rock....Christ was in Peters name because Christ was Peters Rock, as he is ours.

Any Christian in their right mind would know God would never build His Church on sinful man - however this is significant when we see what Catholicism is and how it is to be disciplined in the last days. She is established in Sin and all her doctrines are sinful and she has done whoredom with the nations who have become drunk on her wine.

To be as far from her and her daughters is the wisest path a believer can take.

F2F
 

DJT_47

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2022
928
317
63
Michigan/Sterling Heights
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I pointed out what the scriptures say, so I'm not the one that's wrong if there is a wrong.

Petros and petra are two different genders. His church is the bride and would be represented by feminine gender. Read the explanations again.

The Isaiah scripture doesn't prove a thing especially in regard to Peter being the head of the worldwide church.

Being 1st on a list means nothing as well, and certainly doesn't qualify as being the head of the church worldwide

Mark16:7 means nothing as noted above

I Also explained clearly Peter's unique task which was to initiate the church in both Jerusalem (the Jews) and also in Caesarea (the Gentiles)

And the rest i can sum up this way. Being a leader as recognized by some amongst the apostles doesn't mean you're the head the church world wide. There is no where that's even remotely inferred in the scriptures. If he was head of the church worldwide, and that was Christ's intent, it surely would have been overtly stated without any doubt whatsoever. It ain't there and for good reason; because that was not the intent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: face2face

face2face

Well-Known Member
Jun 22, 2015
4,777
636
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
In no way do I diminish the role and position of Peter when I say he was a sinner only that a rock must be a foundation of absolute strength and dependability and that can only be God through the Lord Jesus Christ...summed up in the words "Son of the Living God"

F2F
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pearl

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
I pointed out what the scriptures say, so I'm not the one that's wrong if there is a wrong.

Petros and petra are two different genders. His church is the bride and would be represented by feminine gender. Read the explanations again.
Yea, I read your explanations and long lists of Protestant scholars agree that Peter is the Rock. These long lists have been posted repeatedly only to fall on deaf ears. "bride" references the whole People of God, not Peter as an individual.
The Isaiah scripture doesn't prove a thing especially in regard to Peter being the head of the worldwide church.
The Isaiaha scripture proves "keys" represent authority.
Being 1st on a list means nothing as well, and certainly doesn't qualify as being the head of the church worldwide
Being first in several lists is not intended to be a qualifier for being head of the Church. Peter's primacy is indicated in over 70 NT verses, it does not rest on one or two verses. Furthermore, a list of Peter's successors is recorded in the earliest years of the Church which is why you are forced to ignore the ECF.
Mark16:7 means nothing as noted above
Mark16:7 is not mentioned at all in the OP.
I Also explained clearly Peter's unique task which was to initiate the church in both Jerusalem (the Jews) and also in Caesarea (the Gentiles)
Peter had a unique task and you contradict yourself.
And the rest i can sum up this way. Being a leader as recognized by some amongst the apostles doesn't mean you're the head the church world wide. There is no where that's even remotely inferred in the scriptures. If he was head of the church worldwide, and that was Christ's intent, it surely would have been overtly stated without any doubt whatsoever. It ain't there and for good reason; because that was not the intent.
This amounts to arrogant denials to Peter's primacy. Your reply to BofL doesn't answer any of his questions.
PRIMACY OF PETER
 

Pearl

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Encounter Team
Apr 9, 2019
11,524
17,503
113
Lancashire
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
In no way do I diminish the role and position of Peter when I say he was a sinner only that a rock must be a foundation of absolute strength and dependability and that can only be God through the Lord Jesus Christ...summed up in the words "Son of the Living God"

F2F
Yes! The only rock that counts for anything is The Rock on whom our faith is built, Jesus, the cornerstone which will never move,

And what about the keys' to the kingdom? Not real keys like those we have to open locks because the Kingdom of God isn't locked. The keys spoken about are the sort of keys that unlock a mystery or as to a map or diagram, keys/pointers which allow us to understand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: face2face

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
The Isaiah scripture doesn't prove a thing especially in regard to Peter being the head of the worldwide church.


Isaiah 22: 19 I will thrust you from your office, and you will be pulled down from your station. 20 In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, 21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your sash on him, and will commit your authority to his hand. And he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. 23 And I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house. 24 And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father's house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons. 25 In that day, says the LORD of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a sure place will give way; and it will be cut down and fall, and the burden that was upon it will be cut off, for the LORD has spoken."

Isaiah 22: 19 I will thrust you from your office, and you will be pulled down from your station.

Shebna is described as having an "office" and a "station." An office, in order for it to be an office, has successors. In order for an earthly kingdom to last, a succession of representatives is required.​

This was the case in the Old Covenant kingdom, and it is the case in the New Covenant kingdom which fulfills the Old Covenant. Jesus our King is in heaven, but He has appointed a chief steward over His household with a plan for a succession of representatives.

Isaiah 22:20 In that day I will call my servant Eli'akim the son of Hilki'ah,

Isaiah 22:20 - in the old Davidic kingdom, Eliakim succeeds Shebna as the chief steward of the household of God. The kingdom employs a mechanism of dynastic succession. King David was dead for centuries, but his kingdom is preserved through a succession of representatives.

Isaiah 22:21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.

Isaiah 22:21 - Eliakim is called “father” or “papa” of God's people. The word Pope used by Catholics to describe the chief steward of the earthly kingdom simply means papa or father in Italian. This is why Catholics call the leader of the Church "Pope." The Pope is the father of God's people, the chief steward of the earthly kingdom and Christ's representative on earth.

Isaiah 22:22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Isaiah 22:22 - we see that the keys of the kingdom pass from Shebna to Eliakim. Thus, the keys are used not only as a symbol of authority, but also to facilitate succession. The keys of Christ's kingdom have passed from Peter to Linus all the way to our current Pope with an unbroken lineage for almost 2,000 years.

23: And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house.

Rev. 1:18; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1 - Jesus' "keys" undeniably represent authority. By using the word "keys," Jesus gives Peter authority on earth over the new Davidic kingdom, and this was not seriously questioned by anyone until the Protestant revolt 1,500 years later after Peter’s investiture.

Revelation 3:7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: `The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 16:19 - whatever Peter binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven / when the Prime Minister to the King opens, no one shuts. This "binding and loosing" authority allows the keeper of the keys to establish "halakah," or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves.

Jeremiah 33:17 For thus saith the Lord: There shall not be cut off from David a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel.

Jeremiah prophesies that David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the earthly House of Israel. Either this is a false prophecy, or David has a successor of representatives throughout history.

Daniel 2:44 But in the days of those kingdoms the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, and his kingdom shall not be delivered up to another people, and it shall break in pieces, and shall consume all these kingdoms, and itself shall stand for ever.

Daniel prophesies an earthly kingdom that will never be destroyed. Either this is a false prophecy, or the earthly kingdom requires succession.
 

DJT_47

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2022
928
317
63
Michigan/Sterling Heights
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yea, I read your explanations and long lists of Protestant scholars agree that Peter is the Rock. These long lists have been posted repeatedly only to fall on deaf ears. "bride" references the whole People of God, not Peter as an individual.

The Isaiaha scripture proves "keys" represent authority.

Being first in several lists is not intended to be a qualifier for being head of the Church. Peter's primacy is indicated in over 70 NT verses, it does not rest on one or two verses. Furthermore, a list of Peter's successors is recorded in the earliest years of the Church which is why you are forced to ignore the ECF.

Mark16:7 is not mentioned at all in the OP.

Peter had a unique task and you contradict yourself.

This amounts to arrogant denials to Peter's primacy. Your reply to BofL doesn't answer any of his questions.
PRIMACY OF PETER
You can believe the long list of scholars if you like. I'm not impressed with so called scholars; I can read and understand as well as anyone including the "scholars", so that means nothing nor will I put my trust in them as opposed to the scriptures and myself. Goodbye
 
  • Like
Reactions: amigo de christo

Desire Of All Nations

Well-Known Member
Jun 23, 2021
748
408
63
Troy
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Your argument becomes exceedingly fallacious when you assert that Peter was not the lead apostle. Peter stated in Acts 15;4 that God chose him to relay the message that salvation was being extended to Gentiles. The fact that James got the last word does not prove in any way that Peter was not the lead apostle. The fact that Jesus renamed him "Peter" inherently means that he was the lead apostle since the name itself designated someone as the chief leader of a religion in the ancient world.

Furthermore, Jesus being the Head of the Church also doesn't prove that there was no lead apostle because Paul specifically stated in Gal. 1 that he went to Jerusalem to be validated by Peter as a an apostle and no one else. Just because Peter was known to be in places other than the HQ church in Jerusalem, it doesn't somehow negate the fact that the authority resided in him.

It's one thing to argue that the apostle Peter wasn't the first pope, but it's an entirely different matter to contradict the Bible showing in no uncertain terms that Jesus designated Peter as being the lead apostle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Illuminator

DJT_47

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2022
928
317
63
Michigan/Sterling Heights
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Peter may or may not have have been an apostle that had somewhat of a leadership role, but even so if he did, that doesn't by any stretch infer that the Lord's church was built on or founded upon him. He did have a unique responsibility to establish the church in Jerusalem as well in Caesarea but once again, that didn't make him the so called pope. The lead apostle? debatable; a lead apostle? most likely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pearl

Jack

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
8,171
3,506
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It is strange that "Pope" nor "Catholic" are not mentioned in the Christian Bible.
 

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
It is strange that "Pope" nor "Catholic" are not mentioned in the Christian Bible.
As I said in post #8:
Isaiah 22:21 - Eliakim is called “father” or “papa” of God's people. The word Pope used by Catholics to describe the chief steward of the earthly kingdom simply means papa or father in Italian. "pappas" in Greek. This is why Catholics call the leader of the Church "Pope." "FATHER" is a title used throughout the Bible for "leader".
Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 – elders of the Church are called “fathers.”
1 Cor. 4:15 – Paul writes, “I became your father in Christ Jesus.”
Luke 1:32 – God’s angel says Jesus will be great and be given the throne of his “father” David.
There are many more.

"Catholic" is the English word for the Latin "Catholicus" that comes from the Greek "kataholos" that you have been trained to think it isn't there.

.and you belong to that Church whose faith St. Paul describes as being "proclaimed (KATanggeletai) in the whole universe (en HOLO to kosmo)” (Rom. 1:8)

Thus the word KATA HOLOS or Catholic in English originated from Scriptures - Romans 1:8

"So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Sama'ria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied." [Acts 9:31 RSV]

There the words "church throughout all" is translated from the Greek words "Ecclesia kata holis" But it was after Ignatius that the term Catholic Church became used more and more to designate the true church.

in "The Faith of the Early Fathers", by William A. Jurgens, (Protestant)
"Catholic Church" is found in...
Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans 106AD;
Martyrdom of St. Polycarp 155AD;
Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 202AD;
Cyprian, Unity of the Catholic Church 251AD;
Cyprian, Letter to Florentius, 254AD

"Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname. The one designates me, while the other makes me specific. Thus am I attested and set apart... When we are called Catholics it is by this appellation that our people are kept apart from any heretical name."
Saint Pacian of Barcelona, Letter to Sympronian, 375 A.D.

This quote does not apply to Protestants because Protestantism didn't exist in 375 A.D.

Now, Jack, it's your turn. Prove the name of your church exists in the Christian Bible.
 

Jack

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
8,171
3,506
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
As I said in post #8:
Isaiah 22:21 - Eliakim is called “father” or “papa” of God's people. The word Pope used by Catholics to describe the chief steward of the earthly kingdom simply means papa or father in Italian. "pappas" in Greek. This is why Catholics call the leader of the Church "Pope." "FATHER" is a title used throughout the Bible for "leader".
Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 – elders of the Church are called “fathers.”
1 Cor. 4:15 – Paul writes, “I became your father in Christ Jesus.”
Luke 1:32 – God’s angel says Jesus will be great and be given the throne of his “father” David.
There are many more.

"Catholic" is the English word for the Latin "Catholicus" that comes from the Greek "kataholos" that you have been trained to think it isn't there.

.and you belong to that Church whose faith St. Paul describes as being "proclaimed (KATanggeletai) in the whole universe (en HOLO to kosmo)” (Rom. 1:8)

Thus the word KATA HOLOS or Catholic in English originated from Scriptures - Romans 1:8

"So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Sama'ria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied." [Acts 9:31 RSV]

There the words "church throughout all" is translated from the Greek words "Ecclesia kata holis" But it was after Ignatius that the term Catholic Church became used more and more to designate the true church.

in "The Faith of the Early Fathers", by William A. Jurgens, (Protestant)
"Catholic Church" is found in...
Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans 106AD;
Martyrdom of St. Polycarp 155AD;
Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 202AD;
Cyprian, Unity of the Catholic Church 251AD;
Cyprian, Letter to Florentius, 254AD

"Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname. The one designates me, while the other makes me specific. Thus am I attested and set apart... When we are called Catholics it is by this appellation that our people are kept apart from any heretical name."
Saint Pacian of Barcelona, Letter to Sympronian, 375 A.D.

This quote does not apply to Protestants because Protestantism didn't exist in 375 A.D.

Now, Jack, it's your turn. Prove the name of your church exists in the Christian Bible.
Amen! No Catholic nor Pope in the Christian Bible!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJT_47

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
It is strange that "Pope" nor "Catholic" are not mentioned in the Christian Bible.
The papacy is a human invention, and even the Orthodox churches refuse to accept the pope as the head of all Christian Churches. The papacy was all about power and control and elevating one man to the level of "the vicar of Christ". The history of the popes shows that they were political leaders manipulating the kings and kingdoms of Europe for about 1,000 years. Of course the present Pope Francis is a TOTAL FRAUD, and should have been sent back to Argentina a long time ago. Every word out of his mouth is total nonsense. In fact he has betrayed the Catholic church as never before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
The papacy is a human invention, and even the Orthodox churches refuse to accept the pope as the head of all Christian Churches. The papacy was all about power and control and elevating one man to the level of "the vicar of Christ". The history of the popes shows that they were political leaders manipulating the kings and kingdoms of Europe for about 1,000 years. Of course the present Pope Francis is a TOTAL FRAUD, and should have been sent back to Argentina a long time ago. Every word out of his mouth is total nonsense. In fact he has betrayed the Catholic church as never before.
Power and control? That's what Karl Marx said. "...opiate of the masses..." Are you a communist? Of course not, but you share in Marx/Lenin anti-Catholic propaganda with your unproven "power and control" lunacy. You talk like a Seventh Day Adventist, with the same false histories. Why was Pope JP2 shot, and by whom? Did your hate cult throw a party? Or are you old enough to remember when the pope got shot? It's clear who you stand with. Your post would be legal in China and North Korea.

1668198074165.png 1668198427178.png


1668198329596.png 1668198926664.png

1668198996349.png 1668199078878.png 1668199233418.png


1668199378672.png 1668199537082.png


1668199838130.png
Enoch 111, your "Bible-Christian" hatred for the papacy is out of touch with reality.
 
Last edited:

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Are you a communist?
I am definitely not a communist but Pope Francis definitely is one. Examine all his public statements. So how come you are not petitioning the Vatican (along with millions of Catholics) that this Communist pope should resign immediately? In fact he should have already resigned if he had any decency.