The Pope: My Explanation

[Tu Es Petrus]

This thread is an offshoot from another thread where the pope was brought up. I did not want to throw that thread off-topic so I started this thread. I will attempt to put forth my view of the Pope. I sure hope this thread doesn't turn intudslinging festival. I know many of you will disagree with me. That is okay. But, at least you may understand my perspective, and thats good enough for me.
 
Much has been said about the Pope. I'm sure we all know the scripture most Christians argue over by heart by now:
 
"...Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."
 
I will try to make clear what the Pope actually is. Many people have mistaken ideas about what the Pope is, which is why they don't see the office in scripture.
 
Simply, the Pope is the fulfillment of the office of Prime Minister that existed in the Kindoms of David and his successors (as many things in the NT are fulfillments of their OT "types".)
 
"And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call My servant Eliakim the son of Helcias, and I will clothe him with thy Robe, and I will strengthen him with thy Sash, and will give thy Power (authority) into his hand; and he shall be as a FATHER (the word 'Pope' means 'Father') to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And I will lay the Key of the House of David (the symbol of primacy) upon his shoulder; and he shall open and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a peg in a Sure Place(the Papal Office), and he shall be for a Throne of glory to the house of his Father. And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his Fathers house, diverse kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music." (Isaiah 22:20-24)
 
In the Davidic Kingdoms, there was the office of Prime Minister (who actually wore a key on his robe as a symbol of office). This position is what is referred to in the abouve text and in other historical documents.
 
So now let's fast-forward to the New Testament: JESUS is the King, the "son of David", in the line of David. These Jewish men, steeped in there Jewish culture, knew EXACTLY what it meant when Jesus gave Peter the keys. Peter was to be the Prime Minister of Christ's Kingdom, the "Keeper of the Keys".
 
So this is what the Pope is: Prime Minister of the King's Kingdom. Also, the Pope has a pastoral role, which is established in John 21: 15-17, when Christ told Peter: "feed my lambs.. ..feed my sheep.. ..tend my sheep."
 
This is the Pope: Prime Minister of Christs Kingdom, and Pastor of the flock. With that in mind, I see the Papacy is ALL THROUGH the scriptures. Now, throw into that mix the fact there is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13) ; sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28 ) . On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and, as I said, Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48 ) .
 
So, as Cyprian of Carthage said in 251 A.D. (almost a hundred years before Constatine):
 
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" - The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

This is the best way I can explain it. I hope any disagreements are posted in charity.

[Johnb]

Tu
This not only the strongest scripyure for a pope it is the only one.  If one looks at the Greek they will see 2 different words that were used for rock.  Peter means little rock or pebble.  Must outside the RCC and orthodox see the big rock that is refered to as the statement of peter "thou art the Christ the son of the living God..."

The second and biggest problem is that most of the NT teaching were written by Paul and others not Peter and there is simply no evidenc that they were checking with Peter before putting pen to parchment.

Third there is no scripural or historical evidence that a successor was picked to succeed Peter.  I know I have seen the Catholic line up of popes/  However there is no scriptural or historical evidence that the first 300 years had one that was called or filled the position of pope.  IMO the orthodox would have a better claim to being the church that started in the first century than the Catholic.  Of course I believe neither is "the church",

[Tu Es Petrus]

Tu
This not only the strongest scripture for a pope it is the only one......

There are others. I quoted John 21: 15-17, where Christ told Peter: "feed my lambs.. ..feed my sheep.. ..tend my sheep." Peter is to shepherd the entire flock - young and old - lambs and sheep. This is a universal mandate.

And then there is the Old Testament typology I tried to explain. Perhaps my explanation was not that good.

[zoonance]

I doubt facts and evidence really matter to the already utterly convinced.  (any camp)

[Tu Es Petrus]

I doubt facts and evidence really matter to the already utterly convinced.  (any camp)

Well, as I said in the OP, I do not expect to convince anyone. I just want my position to be properly understood.

If we disagree, it is better to disagree with what the person actually believes than to disagree with a wrong perception of what we think the other person believes.

[Tu Es Petrus]

I'm going to do a little pre-emptive strike in this post, in case anyone feels the need to bring up the old Petros/Petra - Big Rock/Little Rock argument. In short: Jesus did not use those words. He did not speak Greek. He spoke Aramaic, and the word He used was "Kepha", with no difference between the two.

We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" What’s more, in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).

And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble.) What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’

When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock.

Now, some people will ask: "If kepha means the same as petra, why don’t we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’? Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra?"

Answer: Because he had no choice. Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.

You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock. I admit that’s an imperfect rendering of the Aramaic; you lose part of the play on words. In English, where we have ‘Peter’ and ‘rock,’ you lose all of it. But that’s the best you can do in Greek.

Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.

[zoonance]

I doubt facts and evidence really matter to the already utterly convinced.  (any camp)

Well, as I said in the OP, I do not expect to convince anyone. I just want my position to be properly understood.

If we disagree, it is better to disagree with what the person actually believes than to disagree with a wrong perception of what we think the other person believes.

Very true.  My comment works with anybody by the way.   It really is irritating for others to speak on my behalf as if they are a clairvoyant clone of me.

[zoonance]

I'm going to do a little pre-emptive strike in this post, in case anyone feels the need to bring up the old Petros/Petra - Big Rock/Little Rock argument. In short: Jesus did not use those words. He did not speak Greek. He spoke Aramaic, and the word He used was "Kepha", with no difference between the two.

We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" What’s more, in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).

And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble.) What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’

When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock.

Now, some people will ask: "If kepha means the same as petra, why don’t we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’? Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra?"

Answer: Because he had no choice. Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.

You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock. I admit that’s an imperfect rendering of the Aramaic; you lose part of the play on words. In English, where we have ‘Peter’ and ‘rock,’ you lose all of it. But that’s the best you can do in Greek.

Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.

So the bible really isn't as inspired and reliable as we had hoped it was.  This is reminiscent of the "the original said X and we don't have the original, but if we did it would say X"  argument.  This is what I mean when I try to say that "we" (whoever we is) start from very different assumptions on truth and the source of truth.  There can be no unity in that no matter how fervently we wish that it would be so.  And it is a fervent desire of us all.

[Amo]

This thread is an offshoot from another thread where the pope was brought up. I did not want to throw that thread off-topic so I started this thread. I will attempt to put forth my view of the Pope. I sure hope this thread doesn't turn intudslinging festival. I know many of you will disagree with me. That is okay. But, at least you may understand my perspective, and thats good enough for me.

Much has been said about the Pope. I'm sure we all know the scripture most Christians argue over by heart by now:

"...Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

I will try to make clear what the Pope actually is. Many people have mistaken ideas about what the Pope is, which is why they don't see the office in scripture.

Simply, the Pope is the fulfillment of the office of Prime Minister that existed in the Kindoms of David and his successors (as many things in the NT are fulfillments of their OT "types".)

"And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call My servant Eliakim the son of Helcias, and I will clothe him with thy Robe, and I will strengthen him with thy Sash, and will give thy Power (authority) into his hand; and he shall be as a FATHER (the word 'Pope' means 'Father') to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And I will lay the Key of the House of David (the symbol of primacy) upon his shoulder; and he shall open and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a peg in a Sure Place(the Papal Office), and he shall be for a Throne of glory to the house of his Father. And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his Fathers house, diverse kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music." (Isaiah 22:20-24)

In the Davidic Kingdoms, there was the office of Prime Minister (who actually wore a key on his robe as a symbol of office). This position is what is referred to in the abouve text and in other historical documents.

So now let's fast-forward to the New Testament: JESUS is the King, the "son of David", in the line of David. These Jewish men, steeped in there Jewish culture, knew EXACTLY what it meant when Jesus gave Peter the keys. Peter was to be the Prime Minister of Christ's Kingdom, the "Keeper of the Keys".

So this is what the Pope is: Prime Minister of the King's Kingdom. Also, the Pope has a pastoral role, which is established in John 21: 15-17, when Christ told Peter: "feed my lambs.. ..feed my sheep.. ..tend my sheep."

This is the Pope: Prime Minister of Christs Kingdom, and Pastor of the flock. With that in mind, I see the Papacy is ALL THROUGH the scriptures. Now, throw into that mix the fact there is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13) ; sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28 ) . On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and, as I said, Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48 ) .

So, as Cyprian of Carthage said in 251 A.D. (almost a hundred years before Constatine):

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" - The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

This is the best way I can explain it. I hope any disagreements are posted in charity.

   
   


There was never even supposed to be a king of Israel.  When the Israelites demanded a king, they were rejecting God as such.

1 Sam 8:6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. 7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. 8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. 9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them. 10 And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king. 11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. 12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. 13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. 14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. 15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. 16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. 18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day. 19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; 20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.

1 Sam 10:17 And Samuel called the people together unto the LORD to Mizpeh; 18 And said unto the children of Israel, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I brought up Israel out of Egypt, and delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of all kingdoms, and of them that oppressed you: 19 And ye have this day rejected your God, who himself saved you out of all your adversities and your tribulations; and ye have said unto him, Nay, but set a king over us. Now therefore present yourselves before the LORD by your tribes, and by your thousands.

You seek to reestablish not only the old covenant system, but the obvious mistakes the Jews made during the old covenant.  The old covenant has been replaced by the new covenant by our Lord and Savior and King, Jesus Christ Himself.  The Church of Rome wishes to put one mere man in the place of God again.  This was disastrous to the nation of Israel, and through the establishment of the papacy was disastrous to Christendom as well.  It will be disastrous again to this entire world, as they increasingly accept this abomination, that a single man should stand in the place God, no but even in the very place of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

This is a major problem of the papacy, her dogmas reestablish a priesthood which stands between humanity and God.  The very things Christ came to abolish.  Through the Pope, the priesthood, confession to the same, and transubstantiation, the Church of Rome has placed itself between humanity and God.  This is the very place Christ came to fill, by abolishing these very things which the Church of Rome seeks to reestablish.  Each and every individual has been given direct access to the very throne of God Himself, in and through the Lord Jesus Christ, our High Priest which ever liveth to make intercession for us. 

Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

The following verses are not an attempt by our Lord Jesus to single out Peter as the leader of Christendom, but to the contrary, they are a chance for Peter to redeem himself from the three times he denied Christ in public. 

John 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Matt 26:34 Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. 35 Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples…………………………….
69 Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. 70 But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. 71 And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth. 72 And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man. 73 And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee. 74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.

The Lord was not elevating Peter above the others, but simply giving him the chance to confess the faith which he denied three times, three times.  Far from elevating the Apostle, it was simply giving him a chance to be once again be one.

Peter thought more highly of himself than the other apostles, and had a bigger mouth, thus he was the first to speak on many occasions.  This often got him in more trouble than the other Apostles, it also made him the object of many a humbling lesson. He was rebuked by Christ and called Satan himself, (Matt.16:22&23).  He needed to be saved from drowning by Jesus from a lack of faith,(Matt. 14:29-31).  As previously stated, he denied Christ three times in public to save his own hide, and had to be given opportunity to redeem himself by Christ.  He was rebuked by the Apostle Paul for being a respector of persons, (Gal. 2:11-14).  Peter was not the first to heal, (Mark 6:7-13). 

The following verses are not about Peter’s faith being greater than that of his brethren, but rather Peter’s need for conversion, which came about through the humbling experience of his denial of Christ three times.

Luke 22:31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. 33 And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death. 34 And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.

The Lord did not appear to Peter first, the scripture you supplied does not even say so, it simply says the Lord appeared to Peter.  Other scriptures show clearly that Peter was not the first, (Mark 16:9&12).  We see from mark chapter 16 that the disciples did not believe the report of Mary that Christ was risen, therefore an angel was sent to them.  We also see that Peter was not even considered a disciple after he denied Christ, so an angel was sent to him also.

Mark 16:7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

How about that, the disciples were mentioned before Peter in the above verse.

He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48 ) .

I am out of time, I will examine these scriptures and reply to the same later.  So far, you have done a good job of twisting the scriptures to support what you have already chosen to believe

[Amo]

                                                CHAP. 1 THE ROCK


Matt 16:13-18  13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
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.
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.


The verses above have been the topic of many a heated debate. The church of Rome contends that the above verses established the apostle Peter as the visible head of Christ's church here on earth. The Popes themselves being one continuous line of Peters successors. The writer contends that the church of Rome has attempted to supplant the church of Christ. This she has done by literalizing the spiritual and eternal truth of the above verses and many others, and applying their literal interpretation toward the establishment of her own power. It is the intention of the writer to examine the above verses, and many others, to reveal the deception practiced by the church of Rome in order to establish herself in a seat of authority, that is, in the very temple of God.

The reader has a decision to make. Was Christ referring to Peter himself when he said, " thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church ", or was he referring to what Peter had just said concerning Christ, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God "? Anyone who will study the scriptures, will understand that the church is built upon Christ. Even the church of Rome won't argue that one. The question is, did Christ hand some special power over to Peter above his brethren or not? Is Peter the rock that Christ is referring to, or is the spiritual and eternal truth that Christ is the Son of the living God, the rock that Christ mentions? The following verses pertaining to our Lord as a stone, or rock, may shed some light on the matter.

Ps 118:22-23  22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. 23 This is the LORD's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes.

Isa 28:16  16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

Dan 2:34-35  34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

Matt 21:42  42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Ps 18:2  2 The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.

Ps 18:31 31 For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?

Ps 18:46  46 The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and let the God of my salvation be exalted.

Ps 28:1  1 Unto thee will I cry, O LORD my rock; be not silent to me: lest, if thou be silent to me, I become like them that go down into the pit.

Ps 31:1-3  1 In thee, O LORD, do I put my trust; let me never be ashamed: deliver me in thy righteousness.
2 Bow down thine ear to me; deliver me speedily: be thou my strong rock, for an house of defence to save me.
3 For thou art my rock and my fortress; therefore for thy name's sake lead me, and guide me.

Ps 42:9 9 I will say unto God my rock, Why hast thou forgotten me? why go I mourning because of the oppression of the enemy?

Ps 62:1-2  1 Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation.
2 He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved.

Ps 62:6  6 He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved.

Ps 95:1 1 O come, let us sing unto the LORD: let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation.

Isa 8:13-14  13 Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.
14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Isa 32:1-3  1 Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment.
2 And a man shall be as an hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land.
3 And the eyes of them that see shall not be dim, and the ears of them that hear shall hearken.

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

The Lord is referred to as a rock, or stone all through the scriptures. There is no doubt then, that  a rock, or stone is a symbol of Christ. This being the case, why would anyone assume that the rock referred to in the scriptures under examination, would be referring to Peter. The Lord Jesus Christ is indeed a rock, and a fortress, unmoving, unchanging, the same yesterday, today, and forever. Our Lord is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Why would He build His church upon a man who could not possibly be any of these things, in even the most minute sense? Peter himself demonstrated humanities inconsistency and wavering almost immediately after stating the eternal and spiritual truth that Christ was the Son of the living God. When Christ began to explain that he must suffer and die, Peter rebuked him, saying that these things would not happen. Our Lord's response was to tell Satan, ( Peter ) to get behind him.

Matt 16:21-23 21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Who knows, but that God in his foreknowledge, had this event recorded immediately following Christ's praise of Peter's acknowledgement of his divinity. If, what Papists claim is true, Peter went from being established by Christ as the visible head of the Lords church on earth, to being called Satan by Christ, in a matter of minutes. He went from speaking that which only the Father could have revealed to him, to speaking that which the father of lies, Satan himself, would purpose. This record, in and of itself, shows the complete fallacy of the Papal assertion of authority based upon these scriptures. This is not to mention the atrocities committed by, and the degradation to which the church of Rome descended, under the leadership of so many Popes.

The scriptures clearly reveal who the rock, or stone is, which the church is built upon.

Eph 2:18-22  18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

So it is, that the church of Rome disregards the biblical symbolism of Christ as the rock, in favor of a literal application of the verses under examination. She then uses this literal application as a bases for the establishment of herself as God's one and only true church on earth. In this manner she seats herself in a position of authority, with the Pope at her head.  Many of the Jews thought that because they could trace their lineage back to Abraham, they were God's chosen people. Just so the church of Rome thinks that because she claims to be able to trace a lineage of Popes back to the Apostle Peter, she is God's true church on earth. The following words of John the Baptist to some of the Jews, may well be applied to the church of Rome.

Matt 3:7-10 7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

[Tu Es Petrus]

So the bible really isn't as inspired and reliable as we had hoped it was.  This is reminiscent of the "the original said X and we don't have the original, but if we did it would say X"  argument.  This is what I mean when I try to say that "we" (whoever we is) start from very different assumptions on truth and the source of truth.  There can be no unity in that no matter how fervently we wish that it would be so.  And it is a fervent desire of us all.

Well, of course the Bible is inspired. But it requires intepretation and study. Frankly, I could dispense with the whole Petra/Kepha argument and still make my point. I was merely trying to address a common objection.

There was never even supposed to be a king of Israel.....

But there was a King nevertheless.  And in Matthew Jesus is repeatedly hailed as the "Son of David".

There was never supposed to be sin either. But there was anyway, and its a reality we deal with.

Sorry if the Bible doesn't play out the way you want it to. But the Davidic Kings lead right up to Jesus, like it or not.

[Tu Es Petrus]

The reader has a decision to make. Was Christ referring to Peter himself when he said, " thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church ", or was he referring to what Peter had just said concerning Christ, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God "?

The great 20th century protestant theologian, R. T. France, stated in his work entitled "Gospel According to Matthew":  "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" (Gospel According to Matthew, 254).

[davidandme]

The reader has a decision to make. Was Christ referring to Peter himself when he said, " thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church ", or was he referring to what Peter had just said concerning Christ, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God "?

The great 20th century protestant theologian, R. T. France, stated in his work entitled "Gospel According to Matthew":  "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" (Gospel According to Matthew, 254).

Peter never claimed to be chief of any Christian church.  Nor any other disciple made such a claim.  This is an invention of the Catholic church to justified a Pope.  If anybody is serious about this debate please watch the John Ankerberg show on youtube.  Here is the link:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR5mMPm6W3o

[Tu Es Petrus]

Peter never claimed to be chief of any Christian church.....

But Jesus made him so nevertheless, as the OP aptly demostrates. I don't go to Youtube for serious debate. I go to the Bible and Early Christian writings. Perhaps you would like to comment on the OP instead of linking us to Youtube.

[Amo]

The great 20th century protestant theologian, R. T. France, stated in his work entitled "Gospel According to Matthew":  "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" (Gospel According to Matthew, 254).

I'm sure you don't want me to start quoting what the Protestant reformers thought of the Pope again, do you?