Where does the Pope get his authority?

[Hobie]

As at best he only has a claim to be a bishop elected by a city as nowhere does Scripture state that the authority the Pope claims was passed on to him. Well, the authority of the Pope is not from scripture, but can be shown to be from another origin and authority. The College of Cardinals, with the Pope given authority at its head, is just the counterpart of the Pagan College of Pontiffs, with its "Pontifex Maximus," or "Sovereign Pontiff," which had existed in Rome from the earliest times, and which is known to have been framed on the model of the grand original Council of Pontiffs at Babylon.

The College of Pontiffs (Collegium Pontificum) came from the religion of the original Council of Pontiffs at Babylon, was then established in ancient Rome and the Pontifex Maximus (Latin, literally: "greatest pontiff") again established as the high priest of the pagan religion. This was the most important position in the ancient Roman religion as it had been in Babylon.

One of the things history show about the ascendancy of the papacy is that the church of Rome promotes the pope as the "Pontifex Maximus" or, Supreme Pontiff. The title Pontifex Maximus is mentioned numerous times by the early church fathers (particularly by Tertullian), but it was not applied to a Christian bishop. The early church fathers say that the Pontifex Maximus was the "King of Heathendom", the high priest of the pagan mystery religion of Rome. The Pontifex Maximus was an imperial office, usually held by the Emperor himself, which made one the "chief priest" of the Roman "state cult."

In 63 B.C., Julius Caesar had himself elected Supreme Pontiff and became emperor of Rome and vested the office of Roman emperor with the priestly powers and functions of the Babylonian Pontiff (Babylon Mystery Religion, p. 80). Augustus kept the tradition of the combined offices, and the title Pontifex Maximus was used by the Roman Caesars as illustrated on a Roman coin depicting the image of Augustus Caesar (27 B.C.-14 A.D.) with his title "Pont. Max.," which is an abbreviation of Pontifex Maximus. It is well known that Domitian required himself to be addressed as dominus et deus [';Lord and God']. (Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting, 85-86.) The Roman title "Pontifex Maximus" was rendered in Greek inscriptions and literature of the time as "#7936;#961;#967;#953;#949;#961;#949;#973;#962;". literally, "high priest or by a more literal translation and order of words as "#7936;#961;#967;#953;#949;#961;#949;#8058;#962; #956;#941;#947;#953;#963;#964;#959;#962;", literally, "greatest high priest".

Thus, the Roman emperors, like the preceding Babylonian emperors, now served as priests of Babylonian paganism, and bore the title Pontifex Maximus. One of the prominent features we find in Revelation is a prophetic picture of the revival of ancient Babylonian system of worship, and here we see a form which came into the center of the Empire. When Rome conquered the world, the sun worship of Mirthism and the Mystery Religions of ancient Babylon that had spread and developed in various nations, was merged into the religious system of Rome. The Roman emperors (including Constantine) continued to hold the office of Pontifex Maximus during this time. Constantine through he claimed to have been a Christian remained the pagan high priest the Supreme Pontiff, paid homage to the sun god on the official coinage and sought the support of the pagan masses and aristocracy of Rome. This signified a real claim to control the church as well as the state, and Constantine chaired the critical Church Council of Nicaea in 325. It was not until the Empire split in two, with the Western Empire going to Emperor Gratian in 360 AD, that he was persuaded to give up the position of the pagan high priest and return it to the bishop of Rome who was given the title Pontifex Maximus. Thus the title Pontifex Maximus can be traced in an unbroken line all the way to Babylon and its system of worship.

 

[RedFan]

Constantine through he claimed to have been a Christian remained the pagan high priest the Supreme Pontiff, paid homage to the sun god on the official coinage and sought the support of the pagan masses and aristocracy of Rome. This signified a real claim to control the church as well as the state, and Constantine chaired the critical Church Council of Nicaea in 325. It was not until the Empire split in two, with the Western Empire going to Emperor Gratian in 360 AD, that he was persuaded to give up the position of the pagan high priest and return it to the bishop of Rome who was given the title Pontifex Maximus.

Constantine died in 337.

 

[Pearl]

The Catholic Church gives it to him unquestioningly, by believing. They are taught and accept, mostly without question. So in that way they perpetuate the belief of his
god given authority.

 

[Hobie]

The Catholic Church gives it to him unquestioningly.

Well, the problem is that almost everything is blatantly fabricated, even if they claim he has it, it was false or made out of 'whole cloth' as they say. We now have the Pope who makes up and pretends to have authority of believers and in the Church as the successor of Peter, to whom it is alleged that Christ exclusively committed the keys of the kingdom of heaven. But you have to understand that it was not so when the church began at Rome. Until the Pope was invested with the title, which for a thousand years had been attached to it the power of the keys of Janus and Cybele, no such claim to pre-eminence was ever publicly made on his part, on the ground of his being the possessor of the keys bestowed on Peter.

It was only in the second century that the worship of Cybele, under that name, was introduced into Rome; but the same goddess, under the name of Cardea, with the "power of the key," was worshipped in Rome, along with Janus, ages before in ancient times. For the first three centuries, the Roman Catholic claim for authority was founded simply on the 'dignity of their see', as being that of the imperial city, the capital of the Roman world. When, however, the seat of empire was removed to the East, and Constantinople threatened to eclipse Rome, some new ground for maintaining the dignity of the Bishop of Rome had to be found. So they fabricated it, when, about 378, the Pope 'somehow' fell heir to the keys that were the symbols of two well-known Pagan divinities at Rome. Janus bore a key, and Cybele bore a key; and these are the two keys that the Pope emblazons on his arms as the ensigns of his spiritual authority.

How the Pope came to be regarded as wielding the power of these keys took some time but that he did, in the popular view of church tradition, become entitled to that power at the period is certain. Now, when he had come, in the estimation of the Pagans, to occupy the place of the representatives of Janus and Cybele, and therefore to be entitled to bear their keys, the Pope saw that if he could only get it believed among the Christians that Peter alone had the power of the keys, and that he was Peter's successor, and this is what they di. Some time was allowed to pass away, and then for the first time, the Pope publicly assert his pre-eminence, as founded on the keys given to Peter. In 432, and not before, did he publicly lay claim to the possession of Peter's keys.

Now one interesting fact to note was that the Pontifex Maximus or Supreme Pontiff of the ancient pagan sun worship, bore the Chaldean title peter or 'interpreter'. the interpreter of the mysteries. So we see the opportunity to "Christianize" the office of Pontifex Maximus that the bishop of Rome now held, by associating the "Peter" or "Grand Interpreter of Rome", with Peter the apostle. Thus the stories about Peter being the first bishop of Rome, unknown and unheard of in the early church and earlier times, began to surface and 'claimed'.

Thus we may see how the keys of Janus and Cybele would come to be known as the keys of Peter, the "interpreter" of the pagan Mysteries, and we see the real origin of the authority of the Pope, and it wasn't from scripture.

 

[quietthinker]

Where does the Pope get his authority?​

When I was a kid, Cornflakes packets used to have toys inside. Perhaps authorities are more popular now?

 

[Hobie]

If you can make up a lie and spread it around the world, it will always be picked up faster then the truth, and we see this over and over on this issue. We see this in the Catholic church claim that the Pope 'as the successor of Peter' get its authority from the seat of authority which Jesus gave to Peter through presenting him with the keys to the kingdom. If this was so, then why didn't the bishop of Rome declare it from the beginning. Because it never existed, the false idea that Peter came to Rome and passed on authority to the bishop of Rome was not brought up till much later when they needed cover for the raising up of the bishop of Rome over the other bishops. But by uniting the pagan keys with a name they were familiar with, then it makes perfect sense, they could get the pagans to support it and then only had to feed the story to Christians to build up the bishop of Rome. But they had to use the name of Peter as cover to accomplish this, and they did this with full knowledge of the lie they were perpetuating. According to Roman Catholicism, these keys represent all authority in heaven and in Earth, and as the "rightful possessor" through the passing of those keys, has all authority.

Well lets look at a description of who Janus was. Janus was the Roman god of gateways and beginnings, often depicted as having two faces looking in opposite directions. The month of January is named for him. His two faces (originally, one was always bearded, one clean-shaven; later both bearded) originally represented the sun and the moon. He was usually depicted with a key and about 378, the Pope fell heir to the keys that were the symbols of two well-known Pagan divinities at Rome. Janus bore a key, and Cybele bore a key; and these are the two keys that the Pope emblazons on his arms as the ensigns of his spiritual authority. So it was at this time that began the belief about the bishop of Rome holding the power of the keys, thus making him Pontiff. What was this power of the keys? It was these two gods (Janus and Cybele) that had the power of heaven and earth.

The ancient pagan Roman priesthood (before the birth of Jesus Christ) had a sovereign pontiff who held the keys. Cybele was the goddess of nature, fertility, and of fortifications, who was worshipped in Rome as the Great Mother of the Gods. She bore a key like Janus, which opened the gates of the invisible world. The goddess Cybele was also worshipped as Cardea, and the college of Cardinals was named for her. In Greek mythology Cybele holds the key to Earth, shutting her up in winter and opening her again in the spring. Similarly, Janus opens the door of the sky and releases the dawn. The term Cardinal is derived from Cardo, a hinge. Janus, whose key the Pope bears, was the 'god of doors and hinges'. It was only in the second century before the Christian era that the worship of Cybele under that name, was introduced to Rome; but the same goddess, under the name of Cardea, with the power of the key, was worshipped in Rome, along with Janus, ages before.

Here is a article that is even clearer on the issue...

"..The reader will now be prepared to understand how it is that the Pope's Grand Council of State, which assists him in the government of the Church, comes to be called the College of Cardinals. The term Cardinal is derived from Cardo, a hinge. Janus, * whose key the Pope bears, was the god of doors and hinges, and was called Patulcius, and Culsius "the opener and the shutter." * This had a blasphemous meaning, for he was worshipped at Rome as the grand mediator. Whatever important business was in hand, whatever deity was to be invoked, an invocation first of all must be addressed to Janus, who was recognised as the "God of gods," * in whose mysterious divinity the characters of father and son were combined, * and without that no prayer could be heard--the "door of heaven" could not be opened. * It was this same god whose worship prevailed so exceedingly in Asia Minor at the time when our Lord sent, by his servant John, the seven Apocalyptic message to the churches established in that region. And, therefore, in one of these messages we find Him tacitly rebuking the profane ascription of His own peculiar dignity to that divinity, and asserting His exclusive claim to the prerogative usually attributed to His rival. Thus, Rev. iii.7: "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth." Now, to this Janus, as Mediator, worshipped in Asia Minor, and equally, from very early times, in Rome, belonged the government of the world; and, "all power in heaven, in earth, and the sea," according to Pagan ideas, was vested in him. * In this character he was said to have "jus vertendi cardinis"--the "power of turning the hinge"--of opening the doors of heaven, or of opening or shutting the gates of peace or war upon earth. The Pope, therefore, when he set up as the High-priest of Janus, assumed also the "jus vertendi cardinis," "the power of turning the hinge,"--of opening and shutting in the blasphemous Pagan sense. Slowly and cautiously at first was this power asserted; but the foundation being laid, steadily, century after century, was the grand superstructure of priestly power erected upon it. The Pagans, who saw what strides, under Papal directions, Christianity, as professed in Rome, was making towards Paganism, were more than content to recognise the Pope as possessing this power; they gladly encouraged him to rise, step by step, to the full height of the blasphemous pretensions befitting the representative of Janus..."
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/2bab029.htm


"The very apostolic designation, Peter, is from the Mysteries. The hierophant or supreme pontiff bore the Chaldean title peter, or interpreter. The names Phtah, Pethr, the residence of Balaam, Patara, and Patras, the names of oracles-cities, pateres or pateras and, perhaps, Buddha, all come from the same root ... No apostle Peter was ever at Rome; but the Pope, seizing the scepter of the Pontifex Maximus, the keys of Janus and Kubelé, and adorning his Christian head with the cap of the Magna Mater, copied from that of the tiara of Brahmâtma, the Supreme Pontiff of the Initiates of old India, became the successor of the Pagan high priest, the real Peter-Roma, or Petroma (the tiara of the Pope is also a perfect copy of that of the Dalai-Lama of Thibet)" (Isis Unveiled, Blavatsky, p. 30). http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2149480/pg1

Furthermore, The Catholic Encyclopedia confirms that the term Cardinal is derived from the Latin word for hinge as does a book sponsored by the Pontifical Administration:

It became the usual designation of every priest belonging to a central or episcopal church, an ecclesiastical cardo (Lat. for hinge)...(SÄGMÜLLER. J.B. Transcribed by WG Kofron. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume III. Copyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by Kevin Knight. Nihil Obstat, November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).... later called cardinals (hinges of the organization) (Lopes A. The Popes: The lives of the pontiffs through 2000 years of history. Futura Edizoni, Roma, 1997, pp. 1,2).
http://www.cogwriter.com/peterkeys.htm

The fact is that Peter never went to Rome, never wore a crown, and never sat on a throne. In the book Behind the Purple Curtain , by Montano, pages 26-28, we read of another deception concerning Peter:

"Eminent archeologists and historians are inclined to believe that the bronze statue of St. Peter in Rome, standing on a pedestal about four feet high near the Main Altar close by one of the four massive pillars supporting the dome, was originally the statue of Jupiter Capitolinus. It is said that Pope Leo the Great transformed it into the traditional likeness of Saint Peter." Thus, people are really paying homage to a pagan god, not the Apostle Peter. The Catholic Church has a interesting explanation on this, that the Pope 'melted the statue of Jupicter' and remade it as 'St Peter'.. Hmm..

 

[RedFan]

I posted this on anther thread ("Peter the Rock?") but nobody responded, so I thought I'd repeat it here in case someone in the know on this topic is still following:

It seems to me that Matt. 16:18 is unavoidably ambiguous on the key issue of whether the Rock Jesus had in mind was Peter the man or Peter's confession of faith. St. John Chrysostom thought it was the latter, in Homily 54: "He added this, And I say unto you, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; Matthew 16:18 that is, on the faith of his confession." CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 54 on Matthew (Chrysostom) St. Augustine did as well, Sermon 236A ¶ 3, in Hill, The Works of St. Augustine, Part III, vol 7 (New City Press 1993): “Upon this rock, said the Lord, I will build my Church. Upon this confession, upon this that you said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer her (Mt 16:18).” (I can't find a link, but I do have the book.)

A useful endeavor would be to collect the opinions of as many Church Fathers as possible on both sides of this, and weigh the arguments. I suspect that someone must have undertaken that endeavor and published the results. Does anyone know of such an effort?

 

[Illuminator]

A useful endeavor would be to collect the opinions of as many Church Fathers as possible on both sides of this, and weigh the arguments. I suspect that someone must have undertaken that endeavor and published the results. Does anyone know of such an effort?

When he was an Anglican bishop, John Henry Newman set out to disprove Catholicism with an exhaustive study of the Early Church Fathers. He ended up converting to Catholicism.

Although understanding increases, the essential elements of doctrines exist from the beginning. Today’s Church shouldn’t be expected to look like the primitive Church if it is a living, vibrant, spiritual organism. But even the early Church looks like a small “Catholic tree.” It doesn’t look like a Protestant “statue,” doomed to be increasingly corrupted by an encroaching, “diabolical” Catholicism, as is imagined by millions of Protestants unacquainted with the early Church and the oldest source materials after the New Testament, such as the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch (d.c. 110) and St. Clement of Rome (d.c.101).

John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801-1890), the great English convert to Catholicism, who is widely regarded as one of the most profound religious thinkers of his time, wrote in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845), the one indispensable work on this subject:

One thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches . . . at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this. And Protestantism . . . as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination . . . of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone . . . To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.

The bulk of Newman’s extraordinary work is devoted to the exposition of a series of analogies, showing conclusively that the Protestant static conception of the Church (both historically and theologically) is incoherent and false. He argues, for example, that notions of suffering, or “vague forms of the doctrine of Purgatory,” were universally accepted, by and large, in the first four centuries of the Church, whereas, the same cannot be said for the doctrine of Original Sin, which is agreed upon by Protestants and Catholics.

Protestants falsely argue that Purgatory is a later corruption, but it was present early on and merely developed. Original Sin, however, was equally if not more so, subject to development. One cannot have it both ways. If Purgatory is unacceptable on grounds of its having undergone development, then Original Sin must be rejected with it. Contrariwise, if Original Sin is accepted notwithstanding its own development, then so must Purgatory be accepted.

Thus Protestantism is inconsistent in its selective espousal of Christian beliefs. The so-called “Catholic distinctives” were merely cast off at the time of the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century – basically due to prejudice and ignorance. Protestantism ever since has had to either distort, ignore, or be embarrassed by the facts of early Christian history which, again and again, are found to be much more in conjunction with Catholicism. Protestant anti-Catholic apologists are notorious for searching for quotes by Church Fathers which appear to support their presuppositions, while bypassing those (often by the same Father) which clearly suggest the Catholic outlook. I did this myself in the year before I was convinced of the truth of Catholicism.

Newman states, in summary:

If it be true that the principles of the later Church are the same as those of the earlier, then, whatever are the variations of belief between the two periods, the later in reality agrees more than it differs with the earlier, for principles are responsible for doctrines. Hence they who assert that the modern Roman system is the corruption of primitive theology are forced to discover some difference of principle between the one and the other; for instance, that the right of private judgment was secured to the early Church and has been lost to the later, or again, that the later Church rationalizes and the earlier went by faith.​

This is true whether the theological considerations are those agreed upon by all, such as the Divinity of Christ, the Two Natures of Christ, the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, Original Sin, and the Canon of Scripture,
or those denied by Protestants, such as the Marian dogmas, Purgatory, the papacy, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Communion of Saints, priestly absolution, baptismal regeneration, the Sacrifice of the Mass, etc.

If anything must be described, then, as a corruption of primitive, pure Christianity, it is Protestantism, not Catholicism, since it introduced a radically new mode of Christian authority which was a 180-degree departure from the established Christian Tradition: that of subjective, private judgment, tied in with the unbiblical, unhistorical, and unreasonable notion of “Scripture Alone.” Protestantism is much more of a corruption, if that word is defined as an essential change of direction or philosophy of an institution or a set of beliefs (in this case theological and spiritual).

One might say that an automobile was “corrupt” if the owner decided that it ran better with no muffler, no shocks, no air or fuel filters, half of its spark plugs, watered-down gas, no rear brakes, one headlight, no heat, three quarts low on oil, with half of its radiator coolant, etc. Corruption can consist of “subtraction” as well as “addition.” Protestantism’s charges against Catholicism, closely scrutinized, only come back to incriminate itself.

By and large, Protestantism merely asserts “sola Scriptura” without much consideration of the seriously-flawed implications of the same, and judges all doctrines accordingly. Therefore, those which are deemed to be either outright unbiblical or insufficiently grounded in Scripture to be authoritative, are jettisoned: the Marian doctrines, Purgatory, Penance, the papacy, etc. Apart from the question of Tradition as a legitimate carrier (alongside and in harmony with Scripture) of Christian belief, much more biblical support can be found in Scripture for these “Catholic” doctrines than Protestants suppose.

One simply needs to become familiar with Catholic biblical apologetic arguments. The idea of doctrinal development is a key, in any case, for understanding why the Catholic Church often appears on the surface as fundamentally different than the early Church. Thoughtful Protestants owe it to themselves and intellectual honesty to ponder this indispensable notion before lashing out at the allegedly “unbiblical excesses” of Catholicism.

Development Of Doctrine: A Corruption Of Biblical Teaching?

Doctrines agreed upon by all undergo development, too. The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325; the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381.

www.patheos.com

 

[RedFan]

It is Early Church Father commentaries on Matt. 16:18, either for or against the identification of Peter the man as the Rock, that I am interested in. Has anyone done the survey?

 

[Illuminator]

Peter was obviously the foremost of the 12 disciples, but he fades into the background once Paul comes on the scene. And Peter is the foremost of the 12 disciples even during Jesus’ earthly ministry, when he wasn’t perceived as any sort of Pope (Luke 22:24).

It was a growing understanding, just as the Bible was. The Bible and sola Scriptura are even more central in Protestantism than the papacy is in Catholicism, yet the New Testament wasn’t known in its final form for 300 years, and hence, sola Scriptura couldn’t have been exercised fully in all that time, either (and not by illiterate folks for another 1100 years until the printing press made widespread literature available, and widespread literacy was finally achieved). If that doesn’t sink Jason’s position, then a slowly-growing understanding of the papacy doesn’t sink ours.

Even before Matthew 16 was spoken, we see Peter as unique among the disciples in some ways. To attribute these things to a papal primacy is speculative and irrational.

I don’t see how that follows. Once one admits that Peter was the leader of the apostles, then that is perfectly consistent with our argument that this is an indication that he would be the leader of the Church Universal.

As it is a cumulative argument, showing that the consensus today is that Peter was the Rock is one aspect of that. It isn’t the whole ball of wax. We also show what was meant by having the keys of the kingdom, etc. We support our positions one-by-one and then conclude that the evidence is strong. It is irrelevant whether the scholars cited accept the papacy or not. If anything, they are important as “witnesses” for our biblical “case” precisely because they are ultimately “hostile” witnesses, who cannot be accused of Catholic bias.

Dialogue On Doctrinal Development (Papacy & NT Canon)

Marvelously (or excruciatingly) in-depth discussion on Catholic doctrinal development, with the zealous and articulate (but wrongheaded) anti-Catholic Protestant apologist, Jason Engwer.

www.patheos.com

 

[Illuminator]

It is Early Church Father commentaries on Matt. 16:18, either for or against the identification of Peter the man as the Rock, that I am interested in. Has anyone done the survey?

What the Early Church Believed: The Authority of the Pope

The Early Church Fathers understood that Peter’s successors shared in his special authority, and that the church of Rome was the most authoritative church.

www.catholic.com

What the Early Church Believed: The Authority of the Pope (Part II)

The Early Church Fathers recognized the unique authority of the pope, the bishop of Rome, in his role as the successor of Peter.

www.catholic.com

What the Early Church Believed: Peter's Primacy

Because Peter was made the foundation of the Church, he had a special place or primacy among the apostles. The early Church Fathers clearly recognized this.

www.catholic.com

Did the Early Church Fathers Espouse Papal Infallibility?

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church.

www.catholic.com

The Papacy in the Early Church

One of the strongest arguments by both Protestants a...

www.catholic.com

 

[Hobie]

I posted this on anther thread ("Peter the Rock?") but nobody responded, so I thought I'd repeat it here in case someone in the know on this topic is still following:

It seems to me that Matt. 16:18 is unavoidably ambiguous on the key issue of whether the Rock Jesus had in mind was Peter the man or Peter's confession of faith. St. John Chrysostom thought it was the latter, in Homily 54: "He added this, And I say unto you, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; Matthew 16:18 that is, on the faith of his confession." CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 54 on Matthew (Chrysostom) St. Augustine did as well, Sermon 236A ¶ 3, in Hill, The Works of St. Augustine, Part III, vol 7 (New City Press 1993): “Upon this rock, said the Lord, I will build my Church. Upon this confession, upon this that you said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer her (Mt 16:18).” (I can't find a link, but I do have the book.)

A useful endeavor would be to collect the opinions of as many Church Fathers as possible on both sides of this, and weigh the arguments. I suspect that someone must have undertaken that endeavor and published the results. Does anyone know of such an effort?

Well, some think that it was Peter that Christ was referring to but they need to read their scripture and understand who was and is the Rock.

Ps 18:31 For who [is] God save the LORD (Jehovah)? or who [is] a rock save our God?

Luke 20:17 And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?
Luke 20:18 Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

Mt 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
Mt 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

Rom 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

1Sam 2:2 There is none holy as the LORD (Jehovah): for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.

2Sam 22:2 And he said, The LORD (Jehovah) is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer;

Det 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

Notice closely: Jesus is the Rock, His work is perfect, for all His ways are Judgment, A God of truth (He is the truth; John 14:6), Jesus is without iniquity (Hebrews 4:15), just and right is He.

1 Corinthians 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

 

[Pearl]

The pope would have no authority if the catholic church didn't give it to him. But they do, they revere him even.

 

[RedFan]

Well, some think that it was Peter that Christ was referring to but they need to read their scripture and understand who was and is the Rock.

Ps 18:31 For who [is] God save the LORD (Jehovah)? or who [is] a rock save our God?

Luke 20:17 And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?
Luke 20:18 Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

Mt 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
Mt 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

Rom 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

1Sam 2:2 There is none holy as the LORD (Jehovah): for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.

2Sam 22:2 And he said, The LORD (Jehovah) is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer;

Det 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

Notice closely: Jesus is the Rock, His work is perfect, for all His ways are Judgment, A God of truth (He is the truth; John 14:6), Jesus is without iniquity (Hebrews 4:15), just and right is He.

1 Corinthians 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

So you are introducing a third interpretation -- that Christ was referring to himself as the rock in Matt. 16:16-18. So now here are the candidates if we add yours:

1. Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on YOU I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it."

2. Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on YOUR CONFESSION I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it."

3. Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on MYSELF I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

I'm sorry, but a dozen Scriptural references to Christ as a rock in other contexts doesn't help me understand who or what Jesus was saying the rock is in the context of these verses. Of the three, I think yours is the least logical interpretation of Christ's meaning.

 

[Illuminator]

Well, some think that it was Peter that Christ was referring to but they need to read their scripture and understand who was and is the Rock.

Ps 18:31 For who [is] God save the LORD (Jehovah)? or who [is] a rock save our God?

Luke 20:17 And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?
Luke 20:18 Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

Mt 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
Mt 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

Rom 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

1Sam 2:2 There is none holy as the LORD (Jehovah): for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.

2Sam 22:2 And he said, The LORD (Jehovah) is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer;

Det 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

Notice closely: Jesus is the Rock, His work is perfect, for all His ways are Judgment, A God of truth (He is the truth; John 14:6), Jesus is without iniquity (Hebrews 4:15), just and right is He.

1 Corinthians 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Jesus changed Simon bar Jonah's name to ROCK and it stuck throughout the rest of the NT.
Mark 3:16; John 1:42 – Jesus renames Simon “Kepha” in Aramaic which literally means “rock.” This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because “rock” was not even a name in Jesus’ time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person’s name, He changes their status.

Gen. 17:5; 32:28; 2 Kings 23:34; Acts 9:4; 13:9 – for example, in these verses, we see that God changes the following people’s names and, as a result, they become special agents of God: Abram to Abraham; Jacob to Israel, Eliakim to Jehoiakim, Saul to Paul.

2 Sam. 22:2-3, 32, 47; 23:3; Psalm 18:2,31,46; 19:4; 28:1; 42:9; 62:2,6,7; 89:26; 94:22; 144:1-2 – in these verses, God is also called “rock.” Hence, from these verses, non-Catholics often argue that God, and not Peter, is the rock that Jesus is referring to in Matt. 16:18. This argument not only ignores the plain meaning of the applicable texts, but also assumes words used in Scripture can only have one meaning. This, of course, is not true. For example:

1 Cor. 3:11 – Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock. These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.

The pope would have no authority if the catholic church didn't give it to him. But they do, they revere him even.

The pope gets his authority on the prerogatives Jesus gave to Peter, the Catholic Church did not "invent" the papacy.

So you are introducing a third interpretation -- that Christ was referring to himself as the rock in Matt. 16:16-18. So now here are the candidates if we add yours:

1. Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on YOU I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it."

2. Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on YOUR CONFESSION I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it."

3. Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on MYSELF I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

I'm sorry, but a dozen Scriptural references to Christ as a rock in other contexts doesn't help me understand who or what Jesus was saying the rock is in the context of these verses. Of the three, I think yours is the least logical interpretation of Christ's meaning.

Yes, it's the least logical because it assumes Christ was pointing to Himself when He said "on this Rock". That approach injects into the verse what isn't there.
Matt. 16:18 – 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.”

 

[Hobie]

The pope would have no authority if the catholic church didn't give it to him. But they do, they revere him even.

Yes, but this is only the church of Rome, not the early or true church which it persecuted and then raised up its bishop saying he was above all others. Not so...

 

[Pearl]

Yes, but this is only the church of Rome, not the early or true church which it persecuted and then raised up its bishop saying he was above all others. Not so...

Not sure what you're getting at there.

 

[Illuminator]

Yes, but this is only the church of Rome, not the early or true church which it persecuted and then raised up its bishop saying he was above all others. Not so...

A non-reply to post #15 because it has you stumped. Who killed the first 27+ popes? You run every time I bring this historical FACT up. You inject into the discussion a false history invented by cults. They have no credibility. You latch on to their lies because it meets some sick need.
Again, who killed the first 27+ popes? You won't answer because the truth shatters your stupid myth making about the early church.

 

[Hobie]

Jesus changed Simon bar Jonah's name to ROCK and it stuck throughout the rest of the NT.
Mark 3:16; John 1:42 – Jesus renames Simon “Kepha” in Aramaic which literally means “rock.” This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because “rock” was not even a name in Jesus’ time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person’s name, He changes their status.

Gen. 17:5; 32:28; 2 Kings 23:34; Acts 9:4; 13:9 – for example, in these verses, we see that God changes the following people’s names and, as a result, they become special agents of God: Abram to Abraham; Jacob to Israel, Eliakim to Jehoiakim, Saul to Paul.

2 Sam. 22:2-3, 32, 47; 23:3; Psalm 18:2,31,46; 19:4; 28:1; 42:9; 62:2,6,7; 89:26; 94:22; 144:1-2 – in these verses, God is also called “rock.” Hence, from these verses, non-Catholics often argue that God, and not Peter, is the rock that Jesus is referring to in Matt. 16:18. This argument not only ignores the plain meaning of the applicable texts, but also assumes words used in Scripture can only have one meaning. This, of course, is not true. For example:

1 Cor. 3:11 – Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock. These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.

The pope gets his authority on the prerogatives Jesus gave to Peter, the Catholic Church did not "invent" the papacy.

Yes, it's the least logical because it assumes Christ was pointing to Himself when He said "on this Rock". That approach injects into the verse what isn't there.
Matt. 16:18 – 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.”

No, sorry Christ is the Rock and it is shown all through the Bible.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Well, some think that it was Peter that Christ was referring to but they need to read their scripture and understand who was and is the Rock.

Ps 18:31 For who [is] God save the LORD (Jehovah)? or who [is] a rock save our God?

Luke 20:17 And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?
Luke 20:18 Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

Mt 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
Mt 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

Rom 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

1Sam 2:2 There is none holy as the LORD (Jehovah): for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.

2Sam 22:2 And he said, The LORD (Jehovah) is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer;

Det 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

Notice closely: Jesus is the Rock, His work is perfect, for all His ways are Judgment, A God of truth (He is the truth; John 14:6), Jesus is without iniquity (Hebrews 4:15), just and right is He.

1 Corinthians 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

And, as I posted in a few other threads - Abraham is also called the "Rock" (Isa. 51:1-2 - just as Peter is in Matt. 16:18.