POPE'S OFFICE IN THE BIBLE

  • 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!

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Isa. 22: 19
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.

[SIZE=13pt]Isa. 22:20 [/SIZE]

[SIZE=13pt]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.[/SIZE]

Isa. 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.

[SIZE=13pt]Isa. 22:22[/SIZE]

[SIZE=13pt] 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.[/SIZE]

Rev. 1:18; Rev. [SIZE=13pt]3:7 ; [/SIZE][SIZE=17.3333px]Rev. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]9:1 ; [/SIZE][SIZE=17.3333px]Rev. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]20:1[/SIZE]


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.

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, a rabbinical term, allows the keeper of the keys to establish "halakah," or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves.

[SIZE=13pt]Jer. 33:17 [/SIZE]

[SIZE=13pt]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.[/SIZE]

Dan. 2:44

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

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Why a Pope is Necessary for Christianity to Make Sense
Here’s the problem: if Christianity teaches unchanging truth how does it adapt to different cultures and different ages?

If it does not adapt it ceases to be relevant. If it does nothing but adapt it alters the truths that cannot be changed.

The English theologian Blessed John Henry Newman said that for Christianity to be both dogmatic and relevant it required an infallible interpreter. What he meant by this was that Christianity was, by definition a dogmatic religion. That means it holds to certain truths that are anchored in historic facts. These truths cannot be changed just as the historic facts cannot be changed. The Nicene Creed lays those truths out in the form of theological propositions. Catholic Christians recite those truths every week at Mass and thus affirm that Christianity is a dogmatic religion.

These unchanging truths, however, must be applied in real life, and real life is complex, varied and constantly changing. To be real, Christianity must be adapted to different cultures, different ages and different circumstances. The truths cannot be changed, but their application must be. The dogmas cannot be altered, but their presentation and priorities must be flexible...

Read more here
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Heb_13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

He is the unchanging Truth, unlike religion that has to keep changing to keep its place in teh world,
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
mjrhealth said:
Heb_13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

He is the unchanging Truth, unlike religion that has to keep changing to keep its place in teh world,
These unchanging truths, however, must be applied in real life, and real life is complex, varied and constantly changing. To be real, Christianity must be adapted to different cultures, different ages and different circumstances. The truths cannot be changed, but their application must be.
 
B

brakelite

Guest
The moment the bishop of Rome accepted the role granted him by Justinian in 533, that is as civil and/or temporal ruler over Rome, he committed spiritual adultery by fornicating with the kings of the earth and his church no longer was the true representative of Christ's body, but became apostate. Now I know the common response to this...that Jesus prophecy regarding the gates of hell is therefore rendered false if indeed the church fell. The answer to this is that not all the church did fall...only that small branch of it in Rome. Elsewhere, like in Persia, Asia, Africa, Britain, India, and even as far as Mongolia and China, the Christian faith had grown exponentially by the time of Justinians decree and all without any help or presiding authority from Rome. When the growing political influence of the church/state union that had formed and which became known as the papacy began to let itself become felt in areas abroad, and failing to gain the submission of existing Christian churches in other areas, she did not trust in the gospel to convince any of her sanctity, but rather resorted to force, persecution, war, and death in order to bring what she now blasphemously called 'heretical' churches into submission to papal authority.
The fate of those Christian churches which disagreed with the Roman succession you speak of, is written in blood across the pages of history. Even to this day, the unchanging dogma you speak of which purports to give the RCC a God given right to destroy heretics, has never been rescinded, for it cannot, nor can ever be, despite the lies we hear about changes in the church's stance re religious liberty. The very essence of what you say yourself regarding Catholicism being a dogmatic religion demands the destruction of all who oppose her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: keras

Bibliocentrist

New Member
Mar 15, 2008
147
2
0
50
Australasia
kepha31 said:
The English theologian Blessed John Henry Newman said that for Christianity to be both dogmatic and relevant it required an infallible interpreter. What he meant by this was that Christianity was, by definition a dogmatic religion. That means it holds to certain truths that are anchored in historic facts. These truths cannot be changed just as the historic facts cannot be changed. The Nicene Creed lays those truths out in the form of theological propositions. Catholic Christians recite those truths every week at Mass and thus affirm that Christianity is a dogmatic religion.
I am not sure if i am allowed to post here if i can't believe anymore at present (since some subforums say christians only), and,

I don't mean any attack on catholicism, though i tend to see that the protestants are more in line with the biblical, and,

I am not sure now that i did not misunderstand, but:

The Dead Sea Scrolls speak of the interpreter of the law who seems to be same as the prophet and/or the star (and maybe the messiah) according to 2nd-hand source.
Judaism says the messiah will interpret even the spaces between words/lines.
[Jesus said not on jot or tiddle will pass from the book til all fulfilled.]
Catholics seem to imply that Mark/Peter/pope is interpreter?
John Newton's infallible interpreter.
English/etc interpretations of Hebrew/Greek are inadequite/imprecise/inaccurate.
I have said sometimes that the law is "spiritual" and is impossible for humans to ever perfectly codify/interpret/live it.
 

Cooter

New Member
Jun 14, 2011
57
2
0
82
N E Ohio
I keep hearing about Peter being the first Pope. And he is linked directly to Jesus. Peter WAS NOT the first leader of the Church at Jerusalem - James the brother of Jesus was. James was martyred by Ananus ben Ananus in 62AD. Peter was martyred in 67AD according to tradition. If he was the leader of the Church he was only so for a period of five years.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Bibliocentrist said:
I am not sure if i am allowed to post here if i can't believe anymore at present (since some subforums say christians only), and,

I don't mean any attack on catholicism, though i tend to see that the protestants are more in line with the biblical, and,

I am not sure now that i did not misunderstand, but:

The Dead Sea Scrolls speak of the interpreter of the law who seems to be same as the prophet and/or the star (and maybe the messiah) according to 2nd-hand source.
Judaism says the messiah will interpret even the spaces between words/lines.
[Jesus said not on jot or tiddle will pass from the book til all fulfilled.]
Catholics seem to imply that Mark/Peter/pope is interpreter?
John Newton's infallible interpreter.
English/etc interpretations of Hebrew/Greek are inadequite/imprecise/inaccurate.
I have said sometimes that the law is "spiritual" and is impossible for humans to ever perfectly codify/interpret/live it.
Mark/Peter/pope do not interpret scripture independently from the episcopate. There are no strict absolute interpretations, that would freeze dry the Living Written Word. Here are guidelines for exegesis, they are not strict commands or rules.

12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)

But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)

13. In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous "condescension" of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, "that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature." (11) For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.

Dei Verbum
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Cooter said:
I keep hearing about Peter being the first Pope. And he is linked directly to Jesus. Peter WAS NOT the first leader of the Church at Jerusalem - James the brother of Jesus was. James was martyred by Ananus ben Ananus in 62AD. Peter was martyred in 67AD according to tradition. If he was the leader of the Church he was only so for a period of five years.
James was the first bishop of Jerusalem, I don't dispute that. James' jurisdiction as bishop of Jerusalem was confined to the area of Jerusalem. There is not a shred of biblical or historical evidence that James governed the universal Church. His ruling at the Council of Jerusalem was a local ruling, not a universal one, and the ban on eating strangled meats for local Jewish Christians was later rescinded (which is not in the Bible). James, as an Apostle, held his own chair. Peter held his own chair, and it doesn't matter where he was so arguing whether or not he was in Rome has nothing to do with his authority as First Among Equals.

Clement was the 4th Pope. St. John the Apostle was still alive, so why wasn't he the Pope? Because John had his own chair, while Clement held the Chair of Peter.

more information on St. James the Apostle

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church's first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Pope spoke, all were kept silent. It doesn't say, "after James spoke, all were kept silent."
Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.
Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching.

13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 SIMEON HATH DECLARED how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Cooter said:
If he was the leader of the Church he was only so for a period of five years.
If Peter was leader of the Church for 100 years people would still rebel against his divinely appointed authority.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Protestant Scholars Agree: Peter Is the Rock
by Gary Hoge (no longer on line)​
One day, when Jesus was in the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” (Matt. 16:13). The disciples gave a variety of answers before Peter finally said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt 16:16). What happened next is the subject of some controversy:

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 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. 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” (Matt. 16:17-19).

To whom or to what was Jesus referring when He said, “On this rock I will build my Church”? What rock was He talking about? Catholics, noting that the name “Peter” (Greek: Petros) is really just the masculine form of the Greek word for “rock” (petra), say He was referring to Simon son of Jonah. If they’re right, if the Church was to be built in some sense on Peter himself, as head of the apostles, then this supports the Catholic doctrine of the papacy. Naturally, Protestants aren’t comfortable with that at all, and so historically, they have claimed that the “rock” to which Jesus referred was Peter’s faith, or perhaps, Christ Himself.

But as the passions of the Reformation era have cooled, and Protestant scholars have taken a more dispassionate look at this text, they have come to agree more and more that Jesus was referring to Peter himself as the rock. Of course, they disagree with the Catholic interpretation of what this means, but many now agree that the Catholic explanation of the grammar of the text is correct.

The following quotations, all of which are from Protestant Bible scholars, are taken from the book Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy (Scott Butler et al., (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing), 1996).

William Hendriksen Member of the Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary says Peter is the Rock

Gerhard Maier Leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian says Peter is the Rock.

Donald A. Carson III Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary says Peter is the Rock

John Peter Lange German Protestant scholar says Peter is the Rock

John A. Broadus Baptist author says Peter is the Rock

J. Knox Chamblin Presbyterian and New Testament Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary says Peter is the Rock

Craig L. Blomberg Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary says Peter is the Rock

David Hill Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, England says Peter is the Rock

Suzanne de Dietrich Presbyterian theologian says Peter is the Rock

Donald A. Hagner Fuller Theological Seminary says Peter is the Rock


More references and elaborations:

W.F. Albright (Protestant) and C.S. Mann
“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence…The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence.”
(The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

Albert Barnes (Nineteenth-Century Presbyterian)
"The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion"
[Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].

John Broadus (Nineteenth-Century Calvinistic Baptist)
"As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession"
[Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].

Craig L. Blomberg (Baptist)
"The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification"
[New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)
“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 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 . . .”
(Expositor's Bible Commentary,
[Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

J. Knox Chamblin (Contemporary Presbyterian)
"By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself"
["Matthew" in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].

R.T. France (Anglican)
“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 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 verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied. . . Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus' new community . . . which will last forever.”
(Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985], vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)


William Hendriksen (Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary)
“The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.”
(New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew
[Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973], page 647JPK page 14]

Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)
"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Catholics to justify the papacy"
(Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

David Hill (Presbyterian)
“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.”
(The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)

Herman Ridderbos (Contemporary Dutch Reformed)
"It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter"
[Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303].

Matt. 16:18 - also, in quoting "on this rock," the Scriptures use the Greek construction "tautee tee" which means on "this" rock; on "this same" rock; or on "this very" rock. "Tautee tee" is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”

Matt. 16:18-19 - in addition, to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter's leadership in the Church. This is a three-fold blessing of Peter - you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom).

Matt. 16:18-19 – to further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: Blessed are “you” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “you,” and I tell “you,” “you” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith.
http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Kepha you miised the point, His church is built on revelation not ot Peter.

Mat 16:17 And 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.
Mat 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.

No one will believe teh lies anymore you cannot in any way shape or form find a reason for teh popes postion, nor your churches doctrines. The works of you church since its inception has demonstared to teh world it is not from God. I could make a list but i am sure you can look it up yourself. it written throughout history.

.Revelation rock-- G4073
πέτρα
petra
pet'-ra
Feminine of the same as G4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): - rock.

Peter rock -

G2786
Κηφᾶς
Kēphas
kay-fas'
Of Chaldee origin (compare [H3710]); the Rock; Cephas (that is, Kepha), surname of Peter: - Cephas

Not the same. stop lying to yourself.
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
If Peter was leader of the Church for 100 years people would still rebel against his divinely appointed authority.
Yes people and theer religions have being rebeling against Jesus and teh truth for centuries.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
mjrhealth said:
Kepha you miised the point, His church is built on revelation not ot Peter.

Mat 16:17 And 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.
Mat 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.

No one will believe teh lies anymore you cannot in any way shape or form find a reason for teh popes postion, nor your churches doctrines. The works of you church since its inception has demonstared to teh world it is not from God. I could make a list but i am sure you can look it up yourself. it written throughout history.

.Revelation rock-- G4073
πέτρα
petra
pet'-ra
Feminine of the same as G4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): - rock.

Peter rock -

G2786
Κηφᾶς
Kēphas
kay-fas'
Of Chaldee origin (compare [H3710]); the Rock; Cephas (that is, Kepha), surname of Peter: - Cephas

Not the same. stop lying to yourself.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone, and "evna" means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is "petra", that "Petros" actually means "a small rock", and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus' blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used "Kepha," not "evna." Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter. (Aramaic has no gender, Greek does, because “petra” would mean “Rockette”, a feminine noun, so “petros” is used.

If you are going to reply to my post, please read it first.

mjrhealth said:
Yes people and theer religions have being rebeling against Jesus and teh truth for centuries.
You and many like you are still bellyaching about 500 year old disputes because you refuse to grow up. Worse, you have to re-write history because the facts don't support your man made system. You don't accept scripture, you don't accept the writings of the earliest Christians, you don't accept numerous Protestant bible scholars, so the only thing left is your private opinion.
 

Retrobyter

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2011
1,783
45
48
66
Tampa Bay, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Shalom, mjrhealth.

mjrhealth said:
Kepha you miised the point, His church is built on revelation not ot Peter.

Mat 16:17 And 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.
Mat 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.

No one will believe teh lies anymore you cannot in any way shape or form find a reason for teh popes postion, nor your churches doctrines. The works of you church since its inception has demonstared to teh world it is not from God. I could make a list but i am sure you can look it up yourself. it written throughout history.

.Revelation rock-- G4073
πέτρα
petra
pet'-ra
Feminine of the same as G4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): - rock.

Peter rock -

G2786
Κηφᾶς
Kēphas
kay-fas'
Of Chaldee origin (compare [H3710]); the Rock; Cephas (that is, Kepha), surname of Peter: - Cephas

Not the same. stop lying to yourself.
Just a simple point: Kefa is a Hebrew name that means something unexpected:

NT:2786 Keefas (kay-fas'); of Aramaic origin [compare OT:3710]; the Rock; Cephas (i.e. Kefa), a surname of Peter:
KJV - Cephas.

OT:3710 keef (kafe); from OT:3721; a hollow rock:
KJV - rock.

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

It is NOT a rock that you can build upon! It’s a GEODE! a simple, plain, spherical rock on the outside with beautiful crystals inside!

http://www.magickeys.com/books/bitaba/pic2.gif

Perhaps it would have helped to list OT:3721 as well...

OT:3721 kaafaf (kaw-faf'); a primitive root; to curve:
KJV - bow down (self).
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
that would freeze dry the Living Written Word
The only living word Is Jesus.....

2Co_3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life

It is by revelation that Christ is building His church, it is a rock that is solid and sure.

Jesus gave no many any authority to build any church, the world is full of religions preaching a differnt Jesus, straying from the truth, turning the truth into a lie

Rom_1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

we have but one true church that Christ is building it has no doors nor windows no walls nor roof, it is made up of spiritually minded people, each one a brick, a part of it with Christ as the cornerstone, it has but one Head that is Jesus Christ, we have but one father, God whom is in heaven. we have a teacher the Holy spirit who speaks only what He is given,we have but one truth that is Jesus. If you deny the truth you deny Jesus because He is the truth and in Him you will find no lie.

In all His Love
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
mjrhealth said:
The only living word Is Jesus.....

2Co_3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life

It is by revelation that Christ is building His church, it is a rock that is solid and sure.

Jesus gave no many any authority to build any church, the world is full of religions preaching a differnt Jesus, straying from the truth, turning the truth into a lie
You don't get it. Jesus builds the Church, He is head of the Church in heaven, But the Church is an extension of the Incarnation and needs human leaders on earth to run it.

we have but one true church that Christ is building it has no doors nor windows no walls nor roof, it is made up of spiritually minded people, each one a brick, a part of it with Christ as the cornerstone, it has but one Head that is Jesus Christ, we have but one father, God whom is in heaven. we have a teacher the Holy spirit who speaks only what He is given,we have but one truth that is Jesus. If you deny the truth you deny Jesus because He is the truth and in Him you will find no lie.

In all His Love


I don't deny the plain meaning of scriptures. Peter is the rock on which the Church is built. If you don't like it, take it up with the Protestant bible scholars who disagree with you. See post #12
 

Bibliocentrist

New Member
Mar 15, 2008
147
2
0
50
Australasia
So the sfmd question is what are the "keys of the kingdom of the heavens" (and/or what is the "key of (the house of) David", &/or the key of knowledge (&/or the keys of death & hades))?

I accept that the evidence does seem that Peter/Cephas was the rock/stone. What evidence is there linking Peter and Rome/Papacy though? Though the first gentiles were through Peter, "Peter was to Jews, Paul to gentiles". Was the "Babylon" that Peter's letter was to Babylon or Rome? Is the rock connected with Tarshish? Matthew ("Levi") (in which the Peter verse is) was "to Jews", Mark (Peter/Paul) "to Romans", Luke (Paul) "to Greeks" (John "to world"). Cephas is Aramaic, Peter is Greek. Could cephas be related to cephalic (golgotha/calvary)? The shet(iyah) foundation stone of the world in Jerusalem?? 3 types ( https://senatorspark.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/3-types-3.jpg)?

Retrobyter's post yet again shows the importance of original languages meanings of words. Could the geode actually be the Earth?
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
You and many like you are still bellyaching about 500 year old disputes because you refuse to grow up.
Are you offended because we wont agree with you??

And many shall be offended by My name.....

You don't get it. Jesus builds the Church, He is head of the Church in heaven, But the Church is an extension of the Incarnation and needs human leaders on earth to run it.
I got it a long time ago thats why I belong to Him and not any religion.

In all His Love