Do the scriptures support Papal Infallibility?

[Clarity]

After telling Peter that he (Jesus) was going to build his church on Peter, and thereby making him the leader and Jesus' representative on earth (Mt 16:17-18) he continues in the next verse to declare Peter's authority.

Winsome,

You have inferred a number of thoughts here which appear contrary to the context of Matt 16.

Firstly, the rock on which the Church is founded is not Peter, but Peter's confession, "thou art the Christ". (Matt. 16:16)

Which is confirmed later by Christs words to the disciples:

Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. (Mat 16:20)

"Thou art the Christ" = Upon this Rock = "tell no one that I am the Christ".

Rock = Christ

Further to this; Matt. 21:42; Acts 4:11; 1 Cor 10:4; Eph. 2:20 & 1 Peter 2:6-8 unambiguously states that Christ is the Rock.

Can you provide 5 passages to support Peter is the Rock in place of Christ being the Son of the Living God?

But lets for a moment take your understanding as far reaching as it is:

"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ". (1 Cor. 3:11).

If you extended Peter to be side by side with Christ as an "alterative" foundation you would be in strict contradiction to this passage. 

What you need to do is find a passage in Peter's epistles to confirm Peter as being an alternative foundation to Christ. Roman Catholics make a great deal of Matt 16, so much so, the entire Church system is built upon it, so you would think Peters Epistles will reveal:

1. He is the rock or foundation
2. He is the leader of all the Apostles
3. He is Jesus' sole representative in the earth

Can you show us from Peters Epistles these teachings.

Clarity

Clarity Christ clearly said

"Blessed are YOU, SIMON BAR-JONA! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.  18 And I tell YOU, YOU ARE PETER[d] and on this rock[e] I will build my church, and the powers of death[f] shall not prevail against it."

Christ did not call St. Peter's confession the rock He called Simon bar-Jona Rock. Hence the man is called Peter(Rock) throughout the rest of the scripture.

LH.

Your attention to the contents of my post have gone unnoticed.  I will refrain from moving deeper in the context of Matt 16 until you display a "little" intellectual honesty.

Clarity

If you say so. Nice talking to you.

Well, that leaves Winsome 

Clarity

[FireSword]

I think he wants evidence of something of Peters Pope position from the epistle of Peter, not from the gospels.

[LightHammer]

I think he wants evidence of something of Peters Pope position from the epistle of Peter, not from the gospels.

I don't think that's what the OP said Fire.

[AVZ]

Peter did receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven, that is not disputed because the scriptures say so.

The discussion what these keys mean, and if they are successive however are complete separate discussions.
Lets say we can define what the keys mean, we still have not resolved the claim that possession of these keys is therefore successive.
The passage in the New Testament does not touch succession.

First the claim that Peter was appointed the representative of Jesus on earth.
There really is nothing in the scriptures that points to the assumption that such a representative is required.
All through the scriptures God has appointed people to bring His message, but NEVER did He appoint them as "representatives".

A representative is not required because God never withdrew Himself from the earth.
The churches (including the RCC) acknowledge that God is omnipresent, that means He is everywhere, even here on earth, right here and right now.
Jesus said: "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
There is no need for a representative, because Jesus IS here Himself.

Furthermore, Jesus specifically appointed a "representative" if you want to call it so, and that was not Peter:
"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. "
This text also points to the fact that this "representative" will work from inside, and not through an external institute.

Both of the above texts confirm to us that The Father, The Son and The Spirit are actively present on earth, everywhere and all the time.


Then the matter of succession.
The RCC reasons that since priesthood was successive, so must be the assumed title Peter received.

The problem is that priesthood was exclusively assigned to members of the tribe of Levi, and we have no indication that Peter indeed was from that tribe.
It is more likely he was not, since he came from Betsaida, which is Napthali territory.
Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, so we can see that with Jesus receiving the Priesthood...succession was done away with.

Now, if Jesus shows us that succession is no longer valid...why does the RCC continue to claim it is???

[LightHammer]

Peter did receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven, that is not disputed because the scriptures say so.

Agreed.

The discussion what these keys mean, and if they are successive however are complete separate discussions.
Lets say we can define what the keys mean, we still have not resolved the claim that possession of these keys is therefore successive.
The passage in the New Testament does not touch succession.

Also agreed. I wouldn't attempt to be so shallow when discussing such a complex topic. With that said I had no intention of simply quoting Matthew 16 and Isaiah and leaving. I don't know if you had the time to read the entire thread but the advancement of my arguments got sidetracked when a person tried to say that somehow Paul also received the keys from Christ.

However casting that aside your point is sound. Simply showing that Peter had the keys and whatever prerogatives that come with them does not in and of itself conclude that those keys are successive.

First the claim that Peter was appointed the representative of Jesus on earth.
There really is nothing in the scriptures that points to the assumption that such a representative is required.
All through the scriptures God has appointed people to bring His message, but NEVER did He appoint them as "representatives".

I disagree with you here. I believe Christ clearly from His own mouth establishes the Apostles as His personal representatives.

Luke 10:16 "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

I believe this is more than conclusive that Christ appointed the Apostles and the 70 as His representatives; unless we are to argue over what "representatives" means. A person empowered to speak authoritatively for Christ to such an extent that rejecting that person is indeed rejecting Christ seems more than convincing to me AVZ that the Apostles and the 70 were indeed representatives.

A representative is not required because God never withdrew Himself from the earth.
The churches (including the RCC) acknowledge that God is omnipresent, that means He is everywhere, even here on earth, right here and right now.
Jesus said: "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
There is no need for a representative, because Jesus IS here Himself.

I disagree. Only a very lose definition of "omnipresent" would lead to this contention between us.

1. First off God the Son (Jesus Christ) is physically in Heaven; unless He is appearing to someone at this moment and I'm not aware of it. That means "physical" representatives are indeed viable.

2. Secondly the presence of Christ on Earth is by way of His Spirit God the Holy Spirit living within you and I. We can not neglect the specifics of God as the Trinity. God the Son is in Heaven and God the Holy Spirit is poured out into our bodies.

3. There is a very long theological discussion about God being omnipresent that we could go into. Mainly the specifics of how His presence is both transcendent and immanent at the same time and how the Apostles were the immanent presence of Jesus Christ transcendent in Heaven.

I'm pretty sure this is unnecessary and would probably be boring for the rest of those participating in the thread.

Furthermore, Jesus specifically appointed a "representative" if you want to call it so, and that was not Peter:
"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. "
This text also points to the fact that this "representative" will work from inside, and not through an external institute.

The Holy Spirit is the minister of the Church, the Church is Christ on earth. The Holy Spirit is not a man and He is not physical therefore He can't be the physical representative of the Jesus Christ who remains evermore a man.

Both of the above texts confirm to us that The Father, The Son and The Spirit are actively present on earth, everywhere and all the time.

Again I agree that this is true. The issue is that the Holy Trinity is not physically present. True to His nature the Trinity has not physicality of His own. The Son adopted physicality through assuming Mary's humanity in the Incarnation. However the Son is physically in Heaven right now.

We are not disputing God's omnipresence. The Church participates in that absolute presence by being His physical presence on Earth and the Apostles (and to be later argued the apostolic successors) His physical representatives.

The problem is that priesthood was exclusively assigned to members of the tribe of Levi, and we have no indication that Peter indeed was from that tribe.
It is more likely he was not, since he came from Betsaida, which is Napthali territory.
Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, so we can see that with Jesus receiving the Priesthood...succession was done away with.

Now, if Jesus shows us that succession is no longer valid...why does the RCC continue to claim it is???

Because the priesthood of Christ committed to the Apostles (and from them the successors) was not of the Levitical priesthood. The Apostle Paul taught us that Christ was a priest of the order of Melchizedek. Melchizedek is of course the king who offered bread and wine to our father Abraham; bread and wine hence the consecrated bread and wine of Eucharist is the holy sacrifice of Christian worship to God the Father.

Since the new priesthood is of Melchizedek there comes with it no requirement to be of the tribe of Levi therefore making the successors-in-question legitimate.

But this is not simply my speculation or interpretation. The scriptures themselves refer to bishops of the early Church one in particular will confirm the Church's position here.

1 Timothy1:1-3
1Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,2To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine,  4 nor to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies which promote speculations rather than the divine training that is in faith;  5 whereas the aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith.

Timothy was a bishop of Ephesus but his father was Greek, his mother was Jewish and he was only circumcised when Paul had him so to satisfy his Jewish peers. Here in practical application we have we see a half Greek half Jew participating in the line of Melchizedek and teaching the Church in Ephesus.

[AVZ]

First the claim that Peter was appointed the representative of Jesus on earth.
There really is nothing in the scriptures that points to the assumption that such a representative is required.
All through the scriptures God has appointed people to bring His message, but NEVER did He appoint them as "representatives".

I disagree with you here. I believe Christ clearly from His own mouth establishes the Apostles as His personal representatives.

Luke 10:16 "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

I believe this is more than conclusive that Christ appointed the Apostles and the 70 as His representatives; unless we are to argue over what "representatives" means. A person empowered to speak authoritatively for Christ to such an extent that rejecting that person is indeed rejecting Christ seems more than convincing to me AVZ that the Apostles and the 70 were indeed representatives.

As you rightfully state, the above was said to all the Apostles and the 70.
There is nothing in this passage that appoints Peter as EXCLUSIVE representative of Jesus.

The problem is that priesthood was exclusively assigned to members of the tribe of Levi, and we have no indication that Peter indeed was from that tribe.
It is more likely he was not, since he came from Betsaida, which is Napthali territory.
Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, so we can see that with Jesus receiving the Priesthood...succession was done away with.

Now, if Jesus shows us that succession is no longer valid...why does the RCC continue to claim it is???

Because the priesthood of Christ committed to the Apostles (and from them the successors) was not of the Levitical priesthood. The Apostle Paul taught us that Christ was a priest of the order of Melchizedek. Melchizedek is of course the king who offered bread and wine to our father Abraham; bread and wine hence the consecrated bread and wine of Eucharist is the holy sacrifice of Christian worship to God the Father.

Since the new priesthood is of Melchizedek there comes with it no requirement to be of the tribe of Levi therefore making the successors-in-question legitimate.

But this is not simply my speculation or interpretation. The scriptures themselves refer to bishops of the early Church one in particular will confirm the Church's position here.

1 Timothy1:1-3
1Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,2To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine,  4 nor to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies which promote speculations rather than the divine training that is in faith;  5 whereas the aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith.

Timothy was a bishop of Ephesus but his father was Greek, his mother was Jewish and he was only circumcised when Paul had him so to satisfy his Jewish peers. Here in practical application we have we see a half Greek half Jew participating in the line of Melchizedek and teaching the Church in Ephesus.

As you rightfully state, Jesus' Priesthood was in the order of Melchizedek.
Now, where in the scriptures do you find that the order of Melchizedek is successive?
Your quote from Timothy doesn't shed any light on this.

You say, "because the order of Melchizedek is not of the Levites, it therefore is successive"
I do not follow that conclusion. Please elaborate why if a horse is not a cow, it must have four legs.

[winsome]

After telling Peter that he (Jesus) was going to build his church on Peter, and thereby making him the leader and Jesus' representative on earth (Mt 16:17-18) he continues in the next verse to declare Peter's authority.

Winsome,

You have inferred a number of thoughts here which appear contrary to the context of Matt 16.

Firstly, the rock on which the Church is founded is not Peter, but Peter's confession, "thou art the Christ". (Matt. 16:16)

Which is confirmed later by Christs words to the disciples:

Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. (Mat 16:20)

"Thou art the Christ" = Upon this Rock = "tell no one that I am the Christ".

Rock = Christ

As LightHammer has shown Christ is clearly stating that Peter is the Rock on which he will build his Church.

When Jesus first met Peter he renamed him from Simon to Kephas (Jn 1:42) which mean Rock (a big one). When God renames someone it is always significant. And in Mt 16;18 we see the significance of that. There is a more in that passage but I will not go into that now.

Further to this; Matt. 21:42; Acts 4:11; 1 Cor 10:4; Eph. 2:20 & 1 Peter 2:6-8 unambiguously states that Christ is the Rock.

And that emphasises the importance of Jesus renaming Simon as Rock.

Can you provide 5 passages to support Peter is the Rock in place of Christ being the Son of the Living God?

Five passages! Does the word of God mean so little to you that God has to tell you something multiple times before you believe him?

But lets for a moment take your understanding as far reaching as it is:

"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ". (1 Cor. 3:11).

If you extended Peter to be side by side with Christ as an "alterative" foundation you would be in strict contradiction to this passage. 

I have suggested no such thing so I see no need to comment further on your piece of fiction.

What you need to do is find a passage in Peter's epistles to confirm Peter as being an alternative foundation to Christ.

I have not claimed that Peter was an alternative foundation  to Christ so I see no need to comment further on your piece of fiction.

Roman Catholics make a great deal of Matt 16, so much so, the entire Church system is built upon it, so you would think Peters Epistles will reveal:

Another piece of your fiction.

1. He is the rock or foundation
2. He is the leader of all the Apostles
3. He is Jesus' sole representative in the earth

Can you show us from Peters Epistles these teachings.

Clarity

Why would I need to show any of these from Peter's epistles? Is any of the word of God insufficient for you? Do you demand of God that he has to speak in a particular way? What arrogance.

As to
1. -  Jesus said "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,.....". Jesus' word is good enough for me.

2. This is a different topic but there is ample evidence all through the New Testament.

3. I have never claimed that Peter was Jesus' sole representative on earth, and therefore I have no need to answer that piece of fiction.


Earlier I asked you "I would like to know what I wrote would lead you to state that I have interpreted Revelation incorrectly. So far you have only given another of your unsubstantiated opinions" I note you have not replied.

[winsome]

LH.

Your attention to the contents of my post have gone unnoticed.  I will refrain from moving deeper in the context of Matt 16 until you display a "little" intellectual honesty.

Clarity

Considering your intellectual dishonesty in the way you claim people said things that have never said I find that comment quite outrageous.

[Clarity]

As LightHammer has shown Christ is clearly stating that Peter is the Rock on which he will build his Church.

No it was proven that LM inferred Peter as being the Rock - as you will see I provided 5 passages teaching LM that Christ is the rock. 

LH decided not to address the contents of the post as you have here.

When Jesus first met Peter he renamed him from Simon to Kephas (Jn 1:42) which mean Rock (a big one). When God renames someone it is always significant. And in Mt 16;18 we see the significance of that. There is a more in that passage but I will not go into that now.

We are not discussing Peter's change of name though we can if you want.

And that emphasises the importance of Jesus renaming Simon as Rock.

Your jump of logic escapes me.

How can you agree that Christ is the Rock as written " Further to this; Matt. 21:42; Acts 4:11; 1 Cor 10:4; Eph. 2:20 & 1 Peter 2:6-8 unambiguously states that Christ is the Rock.

Only to say this emphasises the importance of Jesus renaming Simon as Rock.

It appears you accept these passages teach Christ as the rock - I doubt you can disagree 

Is this correct?

Five[/b] passages! Does the word of God mean so little to you that God has to tell you something multiple times before you believe him?

Not at all - you are forcing an idea into a single verse.  You ought to know Bible truth is comparing Scripture with Scripture like what was done in proving Jesus Christ is the rock.  If its spoken of 2,3,4 and 5 times then at some point Winsome you will say "this is truth" - I am asking you to show me as many verses that teach Apostolic success and Papal infallibility.

Please do not do what LH did and ignor the question - if you cannot reveal the Scriptures "say so", and we can move on.

I have suggested no such thing so I see no need to comment further on your piece of fiction.

"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ". (1 Cor. 3:11).

Are you saying you don't believe there is another foundation other than the Master?

I have not claimed that Peter was an alternative foundation  to Christ so I see no need to comment further on your piece of fiction.

Ok - So what you are saying is Jesus is the Rock / Foundation upon which the Church is built?

Don't tell what you don't claim tell me what you believe.

Another piece of your fiction.

Again, are you saying the Church does not make a great noise of this verse?  If I where to search the Catholic forum how many times would its Catholic members refer to Matt 16 for apostolic succession?

Would you think it was fiction?

Why would I need to show any of these from Peter's epistles? Is any of the word of God insufficient for you? Do you demand of God that he has to speak in a particular way? What arrogance.

Again, honesty would see you say "I cannot provide you anything within Peters Epistles to prove my beliefs concerning the Church, its foundation or Peter being appointed as sole authority over the Church.

I would rather this than misplaced accusations.

As to
1. -  Jesus said "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,.....". Jesus' word is good enough for me.

This is well and good but you ignore the context:

The rock on which the Church is founded is not Peter, but Peter's confession, "thou art the Christ". (Matt. 16:16)

The fact you and LH have not once in this discussion even spoken to the revelation from Heaven concerning Christ is tantamount to purposely wresting the passage in favour of defending church dogma. 

Can you see - you have been shown the essence of the passage which is totally ignored by you both.

You are happy to play with Peters name and twist and infer Peter, the man as the Rock, but will you discuss the verses which hedge this interaction with God, Jesus, Peter and the disciples?

This contextual truth is confirmed only moments later by Christ to his disciples:

Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. (Mat 16:20)

Now, did Christ strictly charge the disciple that they were not to divulge Peters new found appointed position? Or was it the new plan of Apostolic succession? Or Papal Infallibility?

Was this the message they were to guide and protect from the People?

1. From God through Peter - - > "Thou art the Christ"

2. From Jesus to Peter - - > Upon this Rock i.e "Thou art the Christ"  

3. From Jesus to all the disciples including Peter - - - > "tell no one that I am the Christ".

Rock = Christ

Further to this; Matt. 21:42; Acts 4:11; 1 Cor 10:4; Eph. 2:20 & 1 Peter 2:6-8 unambiguously states that Christ is the Rock.

2. This is a different topic but there is ample evidence all through the New Testament.

3. I have never claimed that Peter was Jesus' sole representative on earth, and therefore I have no need to answer that piece of fiction.

So to confirm you are saying that you do not believe Peter and the successive Apostles are Christs sole representative on earth?

Earlier I asked you "I would like to know what I wrote would lead you to state that I have interpreted Revelation incorrectly. So far you have only given another of your unsubstantiated opinions" I note you have not replied.

Winsome - I dealt with the first paragraph and the error it was teaching.  I am sure by now you can see the context of Matt 16 is concerning the origin of Jesus Christ and the basis upon which the Church would be established and not Peter a sinner.

I am perplexed you cannot read this section and see how clearly it speaks to "who is Jesus Christ" and why it was necessary for the Master to hear these words at this time.

I am conscious we need to get to Isaiah and Revelation.

If you wish to accept the correct context being presented in Matt 16 we can move onto the Key of David.

Clarity   

[LightHammer]

As you rightfully state, the above was said to all the Apostles and the 70.
There is nothing in this passage that appoints Peter as EXCLUSIVE representative of Jesus.

That's because it is not the Catholic position that St. Peter exclusively or the Pope exclusively are the representatives of Christ.

You are assuming that's the position and it isn't. The Apostles are indeed all the representatives of Christ likewise all validly consecrated bishops (the apostolic successors) are the representatives of Christ.

The argument was never that Peter alone was the representative of Christ but that Peter alone was head of that group of representatives. That's the point St. Peter's leadership his princedom among his fellows.

As you rightfully state, Jesus' Priesthood was in the order of Melchizedek.
Now, where in the scriptures do you find that the order of Melchizedek is successive?
Your quote from Timothy doesn't shed any light on this.

I find that it is successive several ways.

1) A priesthood, whether of Melchizedek or Levi, is by its nature successive so long as the institution it ministers to endures. The priest order of Melchizedek was established by Christ and left to the Apostles to tend to the Church on Earth. The Church on Earth is still here therefore her priesthood is still necessary.

Its like God stopping the Levitical priesthood after the death of our ancestor Levi. That would leave the latter generations of Israel without a priesthood.

2) There is the selection of Matthias to replace Judas Iscariot. I don't know of anything more conclusive than this.

You say, "because the order of Melchizedek is not of the Levites, it therefore is successive"
I do not follow that conclusion. Please elaborate why if a horse is not a cow, it must have four legs.

Where did you get that quote? I never said because the priesthood is of Melchizedek and not of Levi it is successive.

No that wasn't my point. You said that the priesthood or position of Peter could not be successive because it the priesthood was exclusive to the tribe of Levi and there is nothing that states Peter was of that tribe and Jesus was of the tribe of Judah.

My point was that the priesthood is of Melchizedek and therefore it is possible to pass it on to members not of our ancestor Levi's tribe. That was the fullest extent of my point.

I never said that the priesthood was successive simply because it wasn't of Levi. I only said that it could be successive where you said it was impossible because it isn't of Levi.

My support for why it is indeed successive was provided in the response to the quotation prior to this.

[LightHammer]

Clarity you are not listening.

Christ is the Chief Cornerstone. Simon son of John is the Rock (Peter) upon which Christ builds His Church further.

You are blatantly ignoring what we are saying.

[Clarity]

Clarity you are not listening.

Christ is the Chief Cornerstone. Simon son of John is the Rock (Peter) upon which Christ builds His Church further.

You are blatantly ignoring what we are saying.

LH you are not listening.

Christ is the sole foundation of the Church.

Peter is but one of the living stones which are many in the Fathers house.   

Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:(2Pe 1:1)

Equal standing!

Where in the Epistles do we find Peter's princely position among his peers? 

It appears you have blatantly ignored not only the context of Matt 16 which you still resist you cannot show us your ecclesiastical system anywhere in the Gospels or epistles.

Why is that LH?

[Clarity]

What LH & Winsome have done is totally ignore the primary teaching from Matt 16 which is the revelation that Jesus is the Christ.  Imagine holding a doctrine so tightly that you miss the main thrust of the Words message 

As you can see they "always" fall on Peter's name and emphasize how in John 1:42 Jesus gave the name "Rock" (Petros) to Simon. The issue for the Romanist is in Matt. 16:18 the Greek is: "Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build my Church." We have two different Greek words being employed with two different connotations:

◾petros (masc.), detached stone 
◾petra (fem.), living rock, solid rock.

Unlike LH and Winsome who refuse to discuss the contextual lessons of Matt 16, "we" can consider the language and use of Peter and his name. 

If, as they say Peter is the very foundation of the Church we would expect to see this single word "petros" repeated in the text.

"Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build my Church."

"Petros", teaches LH and Winsome of Peter's instability and not the unmoveable foundation which they believe him to be and later in the CONTEXT was proven to be .See Matt. 16:22-23 however "petra" indicates the immovable rock-like character of Christ, or the confession of Peter, "thou art the Christ"

The lesson is very simple but this whole discussion is an example of how far and deep deception can overwhelm a persons intelligence.

If only their ears and eyes were opened they would see how far from truth they are. 

Clarity

[LightHammer]

Clarity you are not listening.

Christ is the Chief Cornerstone. Simon son of John is the Rock (Peter) upon which Christ builds His Church further.

You are blatantly ignoring what we are saying.

LH you are not listening.

Christ is the sole foundation of the Church.

Peter is but one of the living stones which are many in the Fathers house.   

Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:(2Pe 1:1)

Equal standing!

Where in the Epistles do we find Peter's princely position among his peers? 

It appears you have blatantly ignored not only the context of Matt 16 which you still resist you cannot show us your ecclesiastical system anywhere in the Gospels or epistles.

Why is that LH?

A faith not a position in that faith.

[Clarity]

Clarity you are not listening.

Christ is the Chief Cornerstone. Simon son of John is the Rock (Peter) upon which Christ builds His Church further.

You are blatantly ignoring what we are saying.

LH you are not listening.

Christ is the sole foundation of the Church.

Peter is but one of the living stones which are many in the Fathers house.   

Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:(2Pe 1:1)

Equal standing!

Where in the Epistles do we find Peter's princely position among his peers? 

It appears you have blatantly ignored not only the context of Matt 16 which you still resist you cannot show us your ecclesiastical system anywhere in the Gospels or epistles.

Why is that LH?

A faith not a position in that faith.

LH - please cease from resisting the truth being shown to you.

The position of Peter was the same as all the Apostles in the one faith.

The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: (1Pe 5:1)

The only place in all his writings LH where he speaks to his office and he places himself alongside his fellow elders. 

Here he is appealing to the sheep he (and many others) were given to feed. But notice how he doesn't command them, as he would have the authority to do as an Apostle. He is showing the maturity like the Apostle John, Peter has become another shepherd to the flock. 

For you to go beyond the record is your prerogative, but the warning is clear for those who do so.

Clarity

[Clarity]

I also forgot to mention regarding Peters words - "I am also an elder"

The Greek LH & Winsome is Sumpresbuteros, "a fellow elder." Notice that Peter does not claim to be the chief elder, or pope! There had been a time when the Apostles argued among themselves as to who was the greatest ,and submitted the question to Christ (Mat 18:1), but Peter had now by far outgrown such an immature state of mind.

Clarity

[Clarity]

LH & Winsome, the lessons are just pouring out of the Word of God - can you withstand them?

And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. (1Pe 5:4)

Consider with me the phrase "The chief Shepherd"

We know this to mean the good shepherd, even the Lord Jesus Christ (John 10:11), and Peter and his fellow-elders were but under-shepherds.

David was an under Sheppard quoted in Eze 34:23

Jesus Christ was a great chief under shepherd in Heb 13:20

Ye are to return to "the" Shepherd of your souls 1 Peter 2:25.

As Chief Shepherd, the Lord had led the way through death to life, and the apostles, as under-shepherds, were appointed to continue in the same service

For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. (1Co 4:9)

Nowhere in the Bible is Papal succession found or infallibility.

Nowhere!

Clarity

[AVZ]

As you rightfully state, the above was said to all the Apostles and the 70.
There is nothing in this passage that appoints Peter as EXCLUSIVE representative of Jesus.

That's because it is not the Catholic position that St. Peter exclusively or the Pope exclusively are the representatives of Christ.

You are assuming that's the position and it isn't. The Apostles are indeed all the representatives of Christ likewise all validly consecrated bishops (the apostolic successors) are the representatives of Christ.

The argument was never that Peter alone was the representative of Christ but that Peter alone was head of that group of representatives. That's the point St. Peter's leadership his princedom among his fellows.

As you rightfully state, Jesus' Priesthood was in the order of Melchizedek.
Now, where in the scriptures do you find that the order of Melchizedek is successive?
Your quote from Timothy doesn't shed any light on this.

I find that it is successive several ways.

1) A priesthood, whether of Melchizedek or Levi, is by its nature successive so long as the institution it ministers to endures. The priest order of Melchizedek was established by Christ and left to the Apostles to tend to the Church on Earth. The Church on Earth is still here therefore her priesthood is still necessary.

Its like God stopping the Levitical priesthood after the death of our ancestor Levi. That would leave the latter generations of Israel without a priesthood.

2) There is the selection of Matthias to replace Judas Iscariot. I don't know of anything more conclusive than this.

You say, "because the order of Melchizedek is not of the Levites, it therefore is successive"
I do not follow that conclusion. Please elaborate why if a horse is not a cow, it must have four legs.

Where did you get that quote? I never said because the priesthood is of Melchizedek and not of Levi it is successive.

No that wasn't my point. You said that the priesthood or position of Peter could not be successive because it the priesthood was exclusive to the tribe of Levi and there is nothing that states Peter was of that tribe and Jesus was of the tribe of Judah.

My point was that the priesthood is of Melchizedek and therefore it is possible to pass it on to members not of our ancestor Levi's tribe. That was the fullest extent of my point.

I never said that the priesthood was successive simply because it wasn't of Levi. I only said that it could be successive where you said it was impossible because it isn't of Levi.

My support for why it is indeed successive was provided in the response to the quotation prior to this.

According to the RCC the Pope has sole authority as successor of Peter, because:

- a continuous successive line of Popes
- Peter was appointed exclusively to fulfill this position as head of the church

However, in your post above you dismiss this.

You say that it was not an exclusive position.
Does that mean that there are successive lines from all the 12 Apostles and the 70?
Could we therefore have 82 Popes?

Further, you declare that the priesthood of Melchizedek and Levi are not the same, but you then say that similar to Levi the priesthood of Melchizedek by its nature is successive.
How do you know the nature of the priesthood of Melchizedek is successive? From where do you have that knowledge?
Can you name me another priest besides Jesus in the order of Melchizedek and show me that there is a successive line ?
Can you even show that the priesthood of Melchizedek is an earthly priesthood?

What you also say is that Papal succession is NOT from the line of Levi but from Melchizedek.
Then you tell me that it COULD be successive.
So, Papal succession could also NOT be successive...is that what you are saying?

[LightHammer]

According to the RCC the Pope has sole authority as successor of Peter, because:

- a continuous successive line of Popes
- Peter was appointed exclusively to fulfill this position as head of the church

However, in your post above you dismiss this.

You say that it was not an exclusive position.
Does that mean that there are successive lines from all the 12 Apostles and the 70?
Could we therefore have 82 Popes?

No AVZ you're not following me.

1. I said St. Peter was not the exclusive representative of Christ and therefore the Pope is not the exclusive representative of Christ.

The point we were discussing was representation which was not exclusive to one Apostle.

You are now somehow switching the context of my words to make it seem like I'm denying St. Peter's (one representative) unique position of leadership among the Apostles (the other representatives).

2. So let me be clear. The Apostles are uniquely the representatives of Christ. St. Peter was the leader of the Apostles. By virtue of succession the bishops are the representatives of Christ in the modern age and the current Pope Francis as St. Peter's successor is the leader of those representatives.

Tie this into the OP, because Pope Francis succeeds St. Peter as leader of the representatives of Christ on earth he exercises infallibility when deliberating making a solemn declaration for the entire church in matters of faith and morals.

3. Yes there lines that run from all Apostles but only St. Peter's line holds the charism of leadership among them because St. Peter alone was leader.

Further, you declare that the priesthood of Melchizedek and Levi are not the same, but you then say that similar to Levi the priesthood of Melchizedek by its nature is successive.
How do you know the nature of the priesthood of Melchizedek is successive? From where do you have that knowledge?
Can you name me another priest besides Jesus in the order of Melchizedek and show me that there is a successive line ?
Can you even show that the priesthood of Melchizedek is an earthly priesthood?

1. I know the nature of the priesthood is successive because the Church it is in service to endures beyond the time of Christ on earth.

2. I can name twelve other priest besides Christ in the order of Melchizedek as can you.

3. Matthias was a successor.

4. A priesthood in Heaven is useless because we on earth are the ones who need to ministered to.

What you also say is that Papal succession is NOT from the line of Levi but from Melchizedek.
Then you tell me that it COULD be successive.
So, Papal succession could also NOT be successive...is that what you are saying?

Well I don't believe the papal succession couldn't be successive but I am trying to show some objectivity so when can have a meaningful discourse.

I understand the burden of proof is on me and so I'm refraining from making absolute statements that reinforce my position while I provide you my evidence.

[mclees8]

Well I don't believe the papal succession couldn't be successive but I am trying to show some objectivity so when can have a meaningful discourse.

I understand the burden of proof is on me and so I'm refraining from making absolute statements that reinforce my position while I provide you my evidence.



Why does this sound like a politician that talks in circles that says a lot of nothing ?

[AVZ]

According to the RCC the Pope has sole authority as successor of Peter, because:

- a continuous successive line of Popes
- Peter was appointed exclusively to fulfill this position as head of the church

However, in your post above you dismiss this.

You say that it was not an exclusive position.
Does that mean that there are successive lines from all the 12 Apostles and the 70?
Could we therefore have 82 Popes?

No AVZ you're not following me.

1. I said St. Peter was not the exclusive representative of Christ and therefore the Pope is not the exclusive representative of Christ.

The point we were discussing was representation which was not exclusive to one Apostle.

You are now somehow switching the context of my words to make it seem like I'm denying St. Peter's (one representative) unique position of leadership among the Apostles (the other representatives).

2. So let me be clear. The Apostles are uniquely the representatives of Christ. St. Peter was the leader of the Apostles. By virtue of succession the bishops are the representatives of Christ in the modern age and the current Pope Francis as St. Peter's successor is the leader of those representatives.

Tie this into the OP, because Pope Francis succeeds St. Peter as leader of the representatives of Christ on earth he exercises infallibility when deliberating making a solemn declaration for the entire church in matters of faith and morals.

3. Yes there lines that run from all Apostles but only St. Peter's line holds the charism of leadership among them because St. Peter alone was leader.

Further, you declare that the priesthood of Melchizedek and Levi are not the same, but you then say that similar to Levi the priesthood of Melchizedek by its nature is successive.
How do you know the nature of the priesthood of Melchizedek is successive? From where do you have that knowledge?
Can you name me another priest besides Jesus in the order of Melchizedek and show me that there is a successive line ?
Can you even show that the priesthood of Melchizedek is an earthly priesthood?

1. I know the nature of the priesthood is successive because the Church it is in service to endures beyond the time of Christ on earth.

2. I can name twelve other priest besides Christ in the order of Melchizedek as can you.

3. Matthias was a successor.

4. A priesthood in Heaven is useless because we on earth are the ones who need to ministered to.

What you also say is that Papal succession is NOT from the line of Levi but from Melchizedek.
Then you tell me that it COULD be successive.
So, Papal succession could also NOT be successive...is that what you are saying?

Well I don't believe the papal succession couldn't be successive but I am trying to show some objectivity so when can have a meaningful discourse.

I understand the burden of proof is on me and so I'm refraining from making absolute statements that reinforce my position while I provide you my evidence.

I am afraid that you are mixing up some things.
See, leadership and succession are two different things.

Peter could only be a successor if Jesus was dead...but He is not. He is alive.
That's why the order of Mechizedek is not one of succession.

Leadership is a complete different thing altogether and by no means does it have to be successive.
So the question arises, since succession is now out the window, why does the RCC claim exclusive Apostolic Succession for its authority?
What scriptural references do you have that the order of Melchizedek is successive?

In another discussion some of your Catholic friends claim that the RCC is based on history, and not on faith.
Hence your statement "I don't believe the papal succession couldn't be successive " is moot, because "believing" is faith.
It is therefore up to you, to prove in accordance to scripture that succession in the order of Melchizedek is correct.
You cannot refer to texts about priesthood in the order of the Levites, as you rightfully stated that this is another form of priesthood.

We have had discussions about what is canon and who can declare canon.
So you also have to prove authority by using canon. You cannot refer to early church fathers because those scriptures are not canon.

Now up to the next problem.
Whenever the RCC proclaims "truth" she declares it so because she claims she is guided by the Holy Spirit.
You agree with me that without the Holy Spirit, the church could not operate?

So where does the RCC get her authority from?
Correct, from the Holy Spirit!
We know that God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit are one.
Why do you then claim "A priesthood in Heaven is useless because we on earth are the ones who need to ministered to"?
Are you saying that we are not ministered from heaven?
This is quite funny if you know that for an odd 6000 years (and counting) God has ministered to the earth from heaven.

So here we are:
- The Pope is NOT the exclusive representative of Christ on earth
- All representatives have been given the Holy Spirit

Then, all representatives can proclaim truth or interprete scripture through the Holy Spirit.
But, isn't it the RCC that claims only she can proclaim the truth?

Ah, I hear you saying...but only the RCC can proclaim infallible truth.
From where then do you receive the notion that the RCC is infallible?
As argued above, the RCC is not exclusive in representation, but exclusive in leadership.

Fair enough, but then what about all the other leaders in the canon?
Were they infallible? No!
Actually the clear message of the Bible is that leaders are NOT infallible.

So then, for 6000 years our faith in God has prevailed even though leaders were fallible and made mistakes.
For 6000 years the gates of hell could not prevail.
For 6000 years God has built His church, first through the Jews and then through the Gentiles.

What has changed that suddenly we need an infallible, exclusive institute to which all have to submit to keep us within the grace of God?

[winsome]

This thread has moved on a lot overnight (for me) that I'm not sure I can catch up with it. It's one of the problems of being on the other side of the Atlantic from most people on this board!

However let me pick up on afew of points that don't seem to have been answered.

When Jesus first met Peter he renamed him from Simon to Kephas (Jn 1:42) which mean Rock (a big one). When God renames someone it is always significant. And in Mt 16;18 we see the significance of that. There is a more in that passage but I will not go into that now.

We are not discussing Peter's change of name though we can if you want.

Why should we not discuss it – it is highly relevant.

And that emphasises the importance of Jesus renaming Simon as Rock.

Your jump of logic escapes me.

Yes, logic does seem to escape you.

How can you agree that Christ is the Rock as written " Further to this; Matt. 21:42; Acts 4:11; 1 Cor 10:4; Eph. 2:20 & 1 Peter 2:6-8 unambiguously states that Christ is the Rock.

Only to say this emphasises the importance of Jesus renaming Simon as Rock.

It appears you accept these passages teach Christ as the rock - I doubt you can disagree 

Is this correct?

Yes, Jesus is the Rock referred to in those passages. But remember that Jesus being a rock is a metaphor. Jesus is not literally a Rock. He is both God and man but not literally a Rock.

Peter is not literally a Rock either. He is a man.

When God renames someone the new name reflects something about them in the new role God is giving them

When Jesus renames Peter as Rock he is applying the metaphor that is used for himself to Peter. That says something about Peter's future role. By giving Peter the name Rock, a name that represents himself, he was indicating that Peter was to be his representative before men. But that is, at this point a long way in the future.

Then the future gets a lot closer and when Jesus says And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,..... he is emphasising the role that Peter is going to play in the church that Jesus is founding.

Now do you understand?

Five passages! Does the word of God mean so little to you that God has to tell you something multiple times before you believe him?

Not at all - you are forcing an idea into a single verse. 

No I am not

You ought to know Bible truth is comparing Scripture with Scripture like what was done in proving Jesus Christ is the rock.  If its spoken of 2,3,4 and 5 times then at some point Winsome you will say "this is truth" - I am asking you to show me as many verses that teach Apostolic success and Papal infallibility.

Please do not do what LH did and ignor the question - if you cannot reveal the Scriptures "say so", and we can move on.

We can compare verse with verse if they are relevant. But there is a lot more to understanding scripture than such comparisons. Just doing that is the sort of exegesis that leads to nonsense.

We need to examine the context, both the immediate context and the whole context of the Bible.

For example what is the context of Jesus' statement to Peter "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,....." ?

There is the immediate context of the exchange
Peter defines who Jesus is "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.", a definition we still use today.
In response Jesus defines who Peter is - He is Rock, and furthermore the rock on which Jesus will build his Church.

Then there is the context of the place where they are – Caesarea Phillipi
Caesarea Philippi is at the far north of Israel, a long way, probably 3 days walking from Capernaum. In Matthew's gospel this incident is the only one reported at Caesarea Philippi so this exchange seems to have been the main purpose of his visit.

At Caesarea Phillipi where there is a massive cliff face (rock). Into this is built a shrine for the pagan God Pan (the original name for Caesarea Phillipi was Panias). This was the contrast the Jesus was making also.

Then there is the context of Jesus' earlier change of name from Simon to Kephas (Rock).

I have suggested no such thing so I see no need to comment further on your piece of fiction.

"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ". (1 Cor. 3:11).

Are you saying you don't believe there is another foundation other than the Master?

I've said that your previous comment was a piece of fiction.

I have not claimed that Peter was an alternative foundation  to Christ so I see no need to comment further on your piece of fiction.

Ok - So what you are saying is Jesus is the Rock / Foundation upon which the Church is built?

Don't tell what you don't claim tell me what you believe.

I've said that your previous comment was a piece of fiction.

Why would I need to show any of these from Peter's epistles? Is any of the word of God insufficient for you? Do you demand of God that he has to speak in a particular way? What arrogance.

Again, honesty would see you say "I cannot provide you anything within Peters Epistles to prove my beliefs concerning the Church, its foundation or Peter being appointed as sole authority over the Church.

It's nothing to do with my honesty.

Demanding that I provide evidence from a particular part of God's word is a piece of dishonesty on your part and a piece of arrogance.

[winsome]

I also forgot to mention regarding Peters words - "I am also an elder"

The Greek LH & Winsome is Sumpresbuteros, "a fellow elder." Notice that Peter does not claim to be the chief elder, or pope! There had been a time when the Apostles argued among themselves as to who was the greatest ,and submitted the question to Christ (Mat 18:1), but Peter had now by far outgrown such an immature state of mind.

Clarity

Yes, Peter has learnt modesty. But that does not mean he is not the leader.

The testimony of scriptures and that of the early Fathers clearly indicates that Peter was the leader.

[winsome]

LH & Winsome, the lessons are just pouring out of the Word of God - can you withstand them?

And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. (1Pe 5:4)

Consider with me the phrase "The chief Shepherd"

We know this to mean the good shepherd, even the Lord Jesus Christ (John 10:11), and Peter and his fellow-elders were but under-shepherds.

David was an under Sheppard quoted in Eze 34:23

Jesus Christ was a great chief under shepherd in Heb 13:20

Ye are to return to "the" Shepherd of your souls 1 Peter 2:25.

As Chief Shepherd, the Lord had led the way through death to life, and the apostles, as under-shepherds, were appointed to continue in the same service

For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. (1Co 4:9)

Nowhere in the Bible is Papal succession found or infallibility.

Nowhere!

Clarity

Jesus refers to himself as a shepherd
I am the good shepherd. A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. (Jn 10:11)

He has a flock
I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd. (Jn 10:16)

He is the successor of King David whom God promised would look after his sheep (Ez 34:23)

Then in John 21:15-17 he asks Peter to be the shepherd of his sheep
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my lambs." A second time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep" (Jn 21:15-17).

Jesus is still the good shepherd, the sheep still belong to him, but he is giving them into Peter's charge to look after on his behalf.

Jesus has said about his sheep "they will hear my voice". He also said to those to whom he gave authority "whoever listens to you listens to me" (Lk 10:16). So when Peter speaks under authority of Jesus then we hear Jesus our good shepherd.

[winsome]

 

What LH & Winsome have done is totally ignore the primary teaching from Matt 16 which is the revelation that Jesus is the Christ.  Imagine holding a doctrine so tightly that you miss the main thrust of the Words message 

This shows the blatant dishonesty of your style of posting. No-one is missing Peter's declaration that Jesus is the Christ but the subject of this thread is "Does the scriptures support Papal Infallibility?" not "Is Jesus the Christ?"

As you can see they "always" fall on Peter's name and emphasize how in John 1:42 Jesus gave the name "Rock" (Petros) to Simon. The issue for the Romanist is in Matt. 16:18

Now you descend to insults by calling us Romanists!
Concise Oxford English Dictionary
Romanist
n   noun
1   an expert in or student of Roman antiquities or law, or of the Romance languages.
2   chiefly derogatory a member or supporter of the Roman Catholic Church.

the Greek is: "Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build my Church." We have two different Greek words being employed with two different connotations:
◾petros (masc.), detached stone
◾petra (fem.), living rock, solid rock.

Unlike LH and Winsome who refuse to discuss the contextual lessons of Matt 16, "we" can consider the language and use of Peter and his name. 

Yes, we can consider the language and use of Peter and his name - unfortunately you do not.

Firstly Jesus did not rename Simon as Petros. He renamed him Kephas, which is Aramaic for rock -  a big one. Petros is a translation into Greek.Two points regardoing the translation:

1. There is no difference in the Greek of NT times between petros and petra. There was a difference in ancient Greek, though probably according to some experts only in poetry (such as Homer's Illyad).

2. It would have been inappropriate for Peter to have been called by the feminine  petra rather than the masculine petros. In addition there was a word in regular use for stone (lithos – see Jn 19:13). So if Jesus had meant stone the translation would have been lithos.

It would appear from scripture that Peter was well known as Kephas (rock).

St. Paul refers to Kephas in 8 places in both his first letter to the Corinthians and in his letter to the Galatians. For example:

"and that he appeared to Kephas, then to the twelve."(1Cor 15:5)

"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Kephas" (Gal 1:18)

"and when James and Kephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars" (Gal 2:9)


Yes Clarity – we do need to consider the language and use of Peter and his name

[Clarity]

This thread has moved on a lot overnight (for me) that I'm not sure I can catch up with it. It's one of the problems of being on the other side of the Atlantic from most people on this board!

I live in Melbourne Australia.

Why should we not discuss it – it is highly relevant.

I discussed later as you will see - his name fits well in the context of Peters unstable example in Matt 16.
Hard for you to deny this Winesome.

Yes, Jesus is the Rock referred to in those passages. But remember that Jesus being a rock is a metaphor. Jesus is not literally a Rock. He is both God and man but not literally a Rock.

Peter is not literally a Rock either. He is a man.

One is unstable the other is stable - this also you cannot deny.

Now do you understand?

Here is the truth concerning Peter and Rock

As you can see they "always" fall on Peter's name and emphasize how in John 1:42 Jesus gave the name "Rock" (Petros) to Simon. The issue for the Romanist is in Matt. 16:18 the Greek is: "Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build my Church."  We have two different Greek words being employed with two different connotations:

◾petros (masc.), detached stone 
◾petra (fem.), living rock, solid rock.

Unlike LH and Winsome who refuse to discuss the contextual lessons of Matt 16, "we" can consider the language and use of Peter and his name. 

If, as they say Peter is the very foundation of the Church we would expect to see this single word "petros" repeated in the text.

"Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build my Church."

"Petros", teaches LH and Winsome of Peter's instability and not the unmoveable foundation which they believe him to be and later in the CONTEXT was proven to be .See Matt. 16:22-23 however "petra" indicates the immovable rock-like character of Christ, or the confession of Peter, "thou art the Christ"

No I am not

Yes you are forcing an inference upon the text rather than honouring the Greek meaning of Petra and Petros. You are also not speaking to the context of the section of Scripture.

We can compare verse with verse if they are relevant. But there is a lot more to understanding scripture than such comparisons. Just doing that is the sort of exegesis that leads to nonsense.

So by this you are saying the verses I quoted to prove Christ is the Rock and Foundation of the Church is nonsense? Your point is mute as I have not cross-referenced Scripture incorrectly - I know this because you have no evidence to present.

We need to examine the context, both the immediate context and the whole context of the Bible.

You say this but yet to show a true contextual understanding of Matt 16.

For example what is the context of Jesus' statement to Peter "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,....." ?

There is the immediate context of the exchange
Peter defines who Jesus is "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.", a definition we still use today.

Very good - you have shown forth the rock (Petra) not Petros of the Church.  Peter is not what the Church is built on - now this is nonsense.

In response Jesus defines who Peter is - He is Rock, and furthermore the rock on which Jesus will build his Church.

No he makes a play on words to show the opposite - Peter you are a mveable Rock as you will prove shortly - no the Petra is the revelation with God has given you - this will be the foundation of the Church.

Then there is the context of the place where they are – Caesarea Phillipi
Caesarea Philippi is at the far north of Israel, a long way, probably 3 days walking from Capernaum. In Matthew's gospel this incident is the only one reported at Caesarea Philippi so this exchange seems to have been the main purpose of his visit.

At Caesarea Phillipi where there is a massive cliff face (rock). Into this is built a shrine for the pagan God Pan (the original name for Caesarea Phillipi was Panias). This was the contrast the Jesus was making also.

Then there is the context of Jesus' earlier change of name from Simon to Kephas (Rock).

While the context of the location does speak to the events, we want you to acknowledge the foundation message of the Church is not Popery, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ established upon the Rock like message given by God through Peter. 

It's nothing to do with my honesty.

Demanding that I provide evidence from a particular part of God's word is a piece of dishonesty on your part and a piece of arrogance.

Its arrogance because you cannot produce the evidence so your retort is to act offended...I get this, but we want honesty.

I provided LH the only evidence from Peters Epistle showing he was a fellow elder of no more Authority than the other elders of these ecclesia's.

Clarity

[Clarity]

Yes, Peter has learnt modesty. But that does not mean he is not the leader.

All the Apostles are leaders Winsome - but Papal Infallibility and succession 

The testimony of scriptures and that of the early Fathers clearly indicates that Peter was the leader.

The ECF's where full to the brim with Platonic teaching and this is clearly proven from history.

Clarity

[Clarity]

This shows the blatant dishonesty of your style of posting. No-one is missing Peter's declaration that Jesus is the Christ but the subject of this thread is "Does the scriptures support Papal Infallibility?" not "Is Jesus the Christ?"[/font]

So you can admit the context of Matt 16 is "all" about the powerful Gospel of God being the Good news of the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ.  This divine message is the foundation of the Church and not Peter.

Now you descend to insults by calling us Romanists![/font]
Concise Oxford English Dictionary
Romanist
n   noun
1   an expert in or student of Roman antiquities or law, or of the Romance languages.
2   chiefly derogatory a member or supporter of the Roman Catholic Church.

Your doctrine originated out of Vatican / Roman councils and you have used the term Roman Catholic for well over 300 years?  If you would prefer RCC or Roman Catholic I can certainly accommodate.   

1. There is no difference in the Greek of NT times between petros and petra.

It is remarkable how far one will go to defend Church dogma.  This is precisely the intellectual honesty I have been speaking about with you and LM.

Not only do you resist speaking about the primary context of Matt 16 you now wish to deny that two Greek words though closely related actually are identical in meaning.

Petros

Peter = "a rock or a stone"

Petra

) a rock, cliff or ledge

a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground

b) a rock, a large stone

c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul

This was from Blue Letter taken from Thayers Lexicon.

Can you honestly with a clear conscience state there is absolutely no difference between these words and how the Lord Jesus Christ used them.

You would ignore the article in Greek?

What is true; what you cannot deny is the Master used two different words.

Now the question is, on which of the two, petros or petra, did Christ establish His church? Was it on petros, a movable stone, or petra, an immovable rock?

I find this quiet absurd that your teaching is so difficult to prove; so tenuous that your church is establish in one word within one verse in all Scripture and that word is misunderstood.

Imagine the realisation of this when its reveal with Power? 

Clarity

[Clarity]

Other than the way you both mishandle Matt 16, can you now show us how the Keys gave Peter some "unique" power or authority.  Can you also show how this "unique" authority was not held by the other Apostles.

I assume you believe the Keys were successively held and offered Peter Papal Infallibility. Where is this covered in Scripture or do you believe this is just church tradition?   

Clarity

[winsome]

Why should we not discuss it – it is highly relevant.

I discussed later as you will see

Another thing you are going to discuss later  - but don't ?

- his name fits well in the context of Peters unstable example in Matt 16.


Hard for you to deny this Winesome.

Very easy to deny as you present no case.

Yes, Jesus is the Rock referred to in those passages. But remember that Jesus being a rock is a metaphor. Jesus is not literally a Rock. He is both God and man but not literally a Rock.

Peter is not literally a Rock either. He is a man.

One is unstable the other is stable - this also you cannot deny.

Your comment makes no sense and no evidence is provided

Now do you understand?

No because your comments make no sense and no evidence is provided.

Here is the truth concerning Peter and Rock

You mean here is your opinion

As you can see they "always" fall on Peter's name and emphasize how in John 1:42 Jesus gave the name "Rock" (Petros) to Simon. The issue for the Romanist is in Matt. 16:18 the Greek is: "Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build my Church."  We have two different Greek words being employed with two different connotations:

◾petros (masc.), detached stone 
◾petra (fem.), living rock, solid rock.

Unlike LH and Winsome who refuse to discuss the contextual lessons of Matt 16, "we" can consider the language and use of Peter and his name. 

If, as they say Peter is the very foundation of the Church we would expect to see this single word "petros" repeated in the text.

"Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build my Church."

"Petros", teaches LH and Winsome of Peter's instability and not the unmoveable foundation which they believe him to be and later in the CONTEXT was proven to be .See Matt. 16:22-23 however "petra" indicates the immovable rock-like character of Christ, or the confession of Peter, "thou art the Christ"

Jesus did NOT give Peter the name of Petros and scripture quite clearly contradicts you claim on this.

Jesus gave Simon the Aramaic name of Kephas.

I have already explained this.

No I am not

Yes you are forcing an inference upon the text rather than honouring the Greek meaning of Petra and Petros. You are also not speaking to the context of the section of Scripture.

I am understanding the meaning of the Greek as well as the meaning of what Jesus renamed Peter - Kephas

We can compare verse with verse if they are relevant. But there is a lot more to understanding scripture than such comparisons. Just doing that is the sort of exegesis that leads to nonsense.

So by this you are saying the verses I quoted to prove Christ is the Rock and Foundation of the Church is nonsense? Your point is mute as I have not cross-referenced Scripture incorrectly - I know this because you have no evidence to present.

Both I and LH have explained this to you but you are ignoring what we say.

We need to examine the context, both the immediate context and the whole context of the Bible.

You say this but yet to show a true contextual understanding of Matt 16.

But we are not getting that from you.

For example what is the context of Jesus' statement to Peter "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,....." ?

There is the immediate context of the exchange
Peter defines who Jesus is "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.", a definition we still use today.

Very good - you have shown forth the rock (Petra) not Petros of the Church.  Peter is not what the Church is built on - now this is nonsense.

Peter is the rock the Church is built on.

Jesus said it and I believe it.

Why don't you believe Jesus?

In response Jesus defines who Peter is - He is Rock, and furthermore the rock on which Jesus will build his Church.

No he makes a play on words to show the opposite - Peter you are a mveable Rock as you will prove shortly - no the Petra is the revelation with God has given you - this will be the foundation of the Church.

Why would Jesus make such a silly negative point like that. There would be mo reason.

Then there is the context of the place where they are – Caesarea Phillipi
Caesarea Philippi is at the far north of Israel, a long way, probably 3 days walking from Capernaum. In Matthew's gospel this incident is the only one reported at Caesarea Philippi so this exchange seems to have been the main purpose of his visit.

At Caesarea Phillipi where there is a massive cliff face (rock). Into this is built a shrine for the pagan God Pan (the original name for Caesarea Phillipi was Panias). This was the contrast the Jesus was making also.

Then there is the context of Jesus' earlier change of name from Simon to Kephas (Rock).

While the context of the location does speak to the events, we want you to acknowledge the foundation message of the Church is not Popery, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ established upon the Rock like message given by God through Peter. 

I cannot acknowledge that because you are wrong. Jesus' reference to Rock was to Peter not some "Rock like" message.

More insults:
Concise Oxford English Dictionary
popery
n    noun derogatory, chiefly archaic Roman Catholicism.

It's nothing to do with my honesty.

Demanding that I provide evidence from a particular part of God's word is a piece of dishonesty on your part and a piece of arrogance.

Its arrogance because you cannot produce the evidence so your retort is to act offended...I get this, but we want honesty.

Physician heal thyself!

[Clarity]

Why should we not discuss it – it is highly relevant.

I discussed later as you will see

Another thing you are going to discuss later  - but don't ?

- his name fits well in the context of Peters unstable example in Matt 16.


Hard for you to deny this Winesome.

Very easy to deny as you present no case.

Yes, Jesus is the Rock referred to in those passages. But remember that Jesus being a rock is a metaphor. Jesus is not literally a Rock. He is both God and man but not literally a Rock.

Peter is not literally a Rock either. He is a man.

One is unstable the other is stable - this also you cannot deny.

Your comment makes no sense and no evidence is provided

Now do you understand?

No because your comments make no sense and no evidence is provided.

Here is the truth concerning Peter and Rock

You mean here is your opinion

As you can see they "always" fall on Peter's name and emphasize how in John 1:42 Jesus gave the name "Rock" (Petros) to Simon. The issue for the Romanist is in Matt. 16:18 the Greek is: "Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build my Church."  We have two different Greek words being employed with two different connotations:

◾petros (masc.), detached stone 
◾petra (fem.), living rock, solid rock.

Unlike LH and Winsome who refuse to discuss the contextual lessons of Matt 16, "we" can consider the language and use of Peter and his name. 

If, as they say Peter is the very foundation of the Church we would expect to see this single word "petros" repeated in the text.

"Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build my Church."

"Petros", teaches LH and Winsome of Peter's instability and not the unmoveable foundation which they believe him to be and later in the CONTEXT was proven to be .See Matt. 16:22-23 however "petra" indicates the immovable rock-like character of Christ, or the confession of Peter, "thou art the Christ"

Jesus did NOT give Peter the name of Petros and scripture quite clearly contradicts you claim on this.

Jesus gave Simon the Aramaic name of Kephas.

I have already explained this.

No I am not

Yes you are forcing an inference upon the text rather than honouring the Greek meaning of Petra and Petros. You are also not speaking to the context of the section of Scripture.

I am understanding the meaning of the Greek as well as the meaning of what Jesus renamed Peter - Kephas

We can compare verse with verse if they are relevant. But there is a lot more to understanding scripture than such comparisons. Just doing that is the sort of exegesis that leads to nonsense.

So by this you are saying the verses I quoted to prove Christ is the Rock and Foundation of the Church is nonsense? Your point is mute as I have not cross-referenced Scripture incorrectly - I know this because you have no evidence to present.

Both I and LH have explained this to you but you are ignoring what we say.

We need to examine the context, both the immediate context and the whole context of the Bible.

You say this but yet to show a true contextual understanding of Matt 16.

But we are not getting that from you.

For example what is the context of Jesus' statement to Peter "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,....." ?

There is the immediate context of the exchange
Peter defines who Jesus is "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.", a definition we still use today.

Very good - you have shown forth the rock (Petra) not Petros of the Church.  Peter is not what the Church is built on - now this is nonsense.

Peter is the rock the Church is built on.

Jesus said it and I believe it.

Why don't you believe Jesus?

In response Jesus defines who Peter is - He is Rock, and furthermore the rock on which Jesus will build his Church.

No he makes a play on words to show the opposite - Peter you are a mveable Rock as you will prove shortly - no the Petra is the revelation with God has given you - this will be the foundation of the Church.

Why would Jesus make such a silly negative point like that. There would be mo reason.

Then there is the context of the place where they are – Caesarea Phillipi
Caesarea Philippi is at the far north of Israel, a long way, probably 3 days walking from Capernaum. In Matthew's gospel this incident is the only one reported at Caesarea Philippi so this exchange seems to have been the main purpose of his visit.

At Caesarea Phillipi where there is a massive cliff face (rock). Into this is built a shrine for the pagan God Pan (the original name for Caesarea Phillipi was Panias). This was the contrast the Jesus was making also.

Then there is the context of Jesus' earlier change of name from Simon to Kephas (Rock).

While the context of the location does speak to the events, we want you to acknowledge the foundation message of the Church is not Popery, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ established upon the Rock like message given by God through Peter. 

I cannot acknowledge that because you are wrong. Jesus' reference to Rock was to Peter not some "Rock like" message.

More insults:
Concise Oxford English Dictionary
popery
n    noun derogatory, chiefly archaic Roman Catholicism.

It's nothing to do with my honesty.

Demanding that I provide evidence from a particular part of God's word is a piece of dishonesty on your part and a piece of arrogance.

Its arrogance because you cannot produce the evidence so your retort is to act offended...I get this, but we want honesty.

Physician heal thyself!

No new argument here Winsome.  Although I do perceive you are "sensitive" to titles such as Popery to mean "The doctrines, practices, and rituals of the Roman Catholic Church".

Your sensitivity is noted. 

[winsome]

This shows the blatant dishonesty of your style of posting. No-one is missing Peter's declaration that Jesus is the Christ but the subject of this thread is "Does the scriptures support Papal Infallibility?" not "Is Jesus the Christ?"

So you can admit the context of Matt 16 is "all" about the powerful Gospel of God being the Good news of the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ.  This divine message is the foundation of the Church and not Peter.

Clarity,

I will admit no such thing because it would not be true

Jesus set the agenda for the discussion by asking the apostles "Who do men say that the Son of man is?". Therefore Peter's response is very important also.

But Jesus also set the agenda by doing this at Caesarea Phillipi, which also makes his response to Peter very important.

Now you descend to insults by calling us Romanists!
Concise Oxford English Dictionary
Romanist
n   noun
1   an expert in or student of Roman antiquities or law, or of the Romance languages.
2   chiefly derogatory a member or supporter of the Roman Catholic Church.

Your doctrine originated out of Vatican / Roman councils and you have used the term Roman Catholic for well over 300 years?  If you would prefer RCC or Roman Catholic I can certainly accommodate.   

The term Roman Catholic was first coined by the Reformers as an insut to Catholics.

The correct (short) title for the Catholic Church is just that – Catholic Church

The Catechism is the Catechism of the Catholic Church

If you look at the documents of Vatican II or Papal documents you will not find the term Roman Catholic Church.

The term "Roman" can rightly be applied to the Latin or Roman Rite, as opposed to the Malibar or Syriac Rite etc..

Romanist and Popery particulary are derogatory terms.

1. There is no difference in the Greek of NT times between petros and petra.

It is remarkable how far one will go to defend Church dogma.  This is precisely the intellectual honesty I have been speaking about with you and LM.

Not only do you resist speaking about the primary context of Matt 16 you now wish to deny that two Greek words though closely related actually are identical in meaning.

Petros

Peter = "a rock or a stone"

Petra

) a rock, cliff or ledge

a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground

b) a rock, a large stone

c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul

This was from Blue Letter taken from Thayers Lexicon.

Can you honestly with a clear conscience state there is absolutely no difference between these words and how the Lord Jesus Christ used them.

You would ignore the article in Greek?

What is true; what you cannot deny is the Master used two different words.

Now the question is, on which of the two, petros or petra, did Christ establish His church? Was it on petros, a movable stone, or petra, an immovable rock?

I find this quiet absurd that your teaching is so difficult to prove; so tenuous that your church is establish in one word within one verse in all Scripture and that word is misunderstood.

Imagine the realisation of this when its reveal with Power? 

Clarity

Clarity,

We don't strictly know whether Jesus was speaking Aramaic or Greek in Mtt 16.

It seems quite likely that the original of Matthew's gospel was in Aramaic and was thereafter translated. The point is that Jesus was making a pun but could hardly use Petra, a feminine name for Peter. We do know however from John 1:14 that Jesus renames Simon as Kepha which means a big rock.

We also know that petra and petros meant the same in Greek at that time.

Many Protestant scholars accept this. Here are some examples which I quote from an article The Rock of Christ by Phil Porvaznik.

D.A. Carson (Protestant Evangelical) --
"Although it is true that petros and petra can mean 'stone' and 'rock' respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover, the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses ('you are kepha' and 'on this kepha'), since the word was used both for a name and for a 'rock.' The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. 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." (Carson, The Expositor's Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1984], volume 8, page 368, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 17-18)

Oscar Cullmann (Lutheran) from Kittel's Greek standard Theological Dictionary of the New Testament --
"The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words. On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and petros: petra = Kepha = petros....Since Peter, the rock of the Church, is thus given by Christ Himself, the master of the house (Is. 22:22; Rev. 3:7), the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he is the human mediator of the resurrection, and he has the task of admitting the people of God into the kingdom of the resurrection...The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story...For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of 'thou art Rock' and 'on this rock I will build' shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom He has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected." (Cullmann, article on "Rock" (petros, petra) trans. and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [Eerdmans Publishing, 1968], volume 6, page 98, 107, 108)

Craig S. Keener (Protestant Evangelical) --
"'You are Peter,' Jesus says (16:18), paralleling Peter's 'You are the Christ' (16:16). He then plays on Simon's nickname, 'Peter,' which is roughly the English 'Rocky': Peter is 'rocky,' and on this rock Jesus would build his church (16:18)....Protestants...have sometimes argued that Peter's name in Greek (petros) differs from the Greek term for rock used here (petra)....But by Jesus' day the terms were usually interchangeable, and the original Aramaic form of Peter's nickname that Jesus probably used (kephas) means simply 'rock.' Further, Jesus does not say, 'You are Peter, but on this rock I will build my church'....the copulative kai almost always means 'and'.... Jesus' teaching is the ultimate foundation for disciples (7:24-27; cf. 1 Cor 3:11), but here Peter functions as the foundation rock as the apostles and prophets do in Ephesians 2:20-21....Jesus does not simply assign this role arbitrarily to Peter, however; Peter is the 'rock' because he is the one who confessed Jesus as the Christ in this context (16:15-16)...." (Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [Eerdmans, 1999], page 426-427)

Do you want any more?

[Clarity]

This shows the blatant dishonesty of your style of posting. No-one is missing Peter's declaration that Jesus is the Christ but the subject of this thread is "Does the scriptures support Papal Infallibility?" not "Is Jesus the Christ?"

So you can admit the context of Matt 16 is "all" about the powerful Gospel of God being the Good news of the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ.  This divine message is the foundation of the Church and not Peter.

Clarity,

I will admit no such thing because it would not be true

Jesus set the agenda for the discussion by asking the apostles "Who do men say that the Son of man is?". Therefore Peter's response is very important also.

But Jesus also set the agenda by doing this at Caesarea Phillipi, which also makes his response to Peter very important.

Now you descend to insults by calling us Romanists!
Concise Oxford English Dictionary
Romanist
n   noun
1   an expert in or student of Roman antiquities or law, or of the Romance languages.
2   chiefly derogatory a member or supporter of the Roman Catholic Church.

Your doctrine originated out of Vatican / Roman councils and you have used the term Roman Catholic for well over 300 years?  If you would prefer RCC or Roman Catholic I can certainly accommodate.   

The term Roman Catholic was first coined by the Reformers as an insut to Catholics.

The correct (short) title for the Catholic Church is just that – Catholic Church

The Catechism is the Catechism of the Catholic Church

If you look at the documents of Vatican II or Papal documents you will not find the term Catholic Church.

The term "Roman" can rightly be applied to the Latin or Roman Rite, as opposed to the Malibar or Syriac Rite etc..

Romanist and Popery particulary are derogatory terms.

1. There is no difference in the Greek of NT times between petros and petra.

It is remarkable how far one will go to defend Church dogma.  This is precisely the intellectual honesty I have been speaking about with you and LM.

Not only do you resist speaking about the primary context of Matt 16 you now wish to deny that two Greek words though closely related actually are identical in meaning.

Petros

Peter = "a rock or a stone"

Petra

) a rock, cliff or ledge

a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground

b) a rock, a large stone

c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul

This was from Blue Letter taken from Thayers Lexicon.

Can you honestly with a clear conscience state there is absolutely no difference between these words and how the Lord Jesus Christ used them.

You would ignore the article in Greek?

What is true; what you cannot deny is the Master used two different words.

Now the question is, on which of the two, petros or petra, did Christ establish His church? Was it on petros, a movable stone, or petra, an immovable rock?

I find this quiet absurd that your teaching is so difficult to prove; so tenuous that your church is establish in one word within one verse in all Scripture and that word is misunderstood.

Imagine the realisation of this when its reveal with Power? 

Clarity

Clarity,

We don't strictly know whether Jesus was speaking Aramaic or Greek in Mtt 16.

It seems quite likely that the original of Matthew's gospel was in Aramaic and was thereafter translated. The point is that Jesus was making a pun but could hardly use Petra, a feminine name for Peter. We do know however from John 1:14 that Jesus renames Simon as Kepha which means a big rock.

We also know that petra and petros meant the same in Greek at that time.

Many Protestant scholars accept this. Here are some examples which I quote from an article The Rock of Christ by Phil Porvaznik.

D.A. Carson (Protestant Evangelical) --
"Although it is true that petros and petra can mean 'stone' and 'rock' respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover, the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses ('you are kepha' and 'on this kepha'), since the word was used both for a name and for a 'rock.' The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. 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." (Carson, The Expositor's Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1984], volume 8, page 368, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 17-18)

Oscar Cullmann (Lutheran) from Kittel's Greek standard Theological Dictionary of the New Testament --
"The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words. On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and petros: petra = Kepha = petros....Since Peter, the rock of the Church, is thus given by Christ Himself, the master of the house (Is. 22:22; Rev. 3:7), the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he is the human mediator of the resurrection, and he has the task of admitting the people of God into the kingdom of the resurrection...The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story...For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of 'thou art Rock' and 'on this rock I will build' shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom He has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected." (Cullmann, article on "Rock" (petros, petra) trans. and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [Eerdmans Publishing, 1968], volume 6, page 98, 107, 108)

Craig S. Keener (Protestant Evangelical) --
"'You are Peter,' Jesus says (16:18), paralleling Peter's 'You are the Christ' (16:16). He then plays on Simon's nickname, 'Peter,' which is roughly the English 'Rocky': Peter is 'rocky,' and on this rock Jesus would build his church (16:18)....Protestants...have sometimes argued that Peter's name in Greek (petros) differs from the Greek term for rock used here (petra)....But by Jesus' day the terms were usually interchangeable, and the original Aramaic form of Peter's nickname that Jesus probably used (kephas) means simply 'rock.' Further, Jesus does not say, 'You are Peter, but on this rock I will build my church'....the copulative kai almost always means 'and'.... Jesus' teaching is the ultimate foundation for disciples (7:24-27; cf. 1 Cor 3:11), but here Peter functions as the foundation rock as the apostles and prophets do in Ephesians 2:20-21....Jesus does not simply assign this role arbitrarily to Peter, however; Peter is the 'rock' because he is the one who confessed Jesus as the Christ in this context (16:15-16)...." (Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [Eerdmans, 1999], page 426-427)

Do you want any more?

Winsome

Is this a moveable rock your church is established upon?

But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man."
(Mat 16:23)

Can you not see how Christ used Petros and Petra?

Or is the Petra

Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Mat 16:16)

Tell us Winsome - which is the stronger foundation to build a church on.

Clarity

[winsome]

Yes, Peter has learnt modesty. But that does not mean he is not the leader.

All the Apostles are leaders Winsome - but Papal Infallibility and succession 

Peter was the leader of the apostles. The testimony of scriptures and that of the early Fathers is very clear on that.

The testimony of scriptures and that of the early Fathers clearly indicates that Peter was the leader.

The ECF's where full to the brim with Platonic teaching and this is clearly proven from history.

Clarity

Apart from your statement being untrue it has no bearing on their testimony that Peter was considered the leader of the apostles and therefore of the Church.

[Jimmy]

It really doesn't matter whether Jesus was speaking Greek or Aramaic.  If you search throughtout the Bible you will find that the term "rock" is used only two ways.  First, it is used in the literal sense of the mineral material commonly referred to as "rock".  Second it is used in the figurative sense of God.  It is never used in any other sense.  It is very poor exegesis to think that it was used in a third and singular way in Jesus' declaration establishing His church.