1. We strive to be a place where there can be honest discussion, debate and fellowship. The rules are few so you can speak your mind. We know we are living in tough times and we hope to share answers and help with each other. Please join us.
    Dismiss Notice

Catholicism - The Pope

Discussion in 'Christian Cults' started by CoreIssue, Apr 5, 2015.

  1. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    I was thinking about the only verse you hear talking about Peter as Pope is:
    Well, Peter is Petros and the rock the Church is built on is Petra, which is always used to refer to Jesus. So, the Church is built on Christ, not Peter.

    Then, there is the issue of the claim Peter received the Keys to the Kingdom. But does it say that?

    No. Christ was talking to all the Disciples, not just Peter.
    Christ is talking to all the Disciples, not just Peter.

    He even speaks of two, not just Peter, about things being done.

    So there is no question, Peter was never given the leadership of the Church on earth. In fact, he was never the the Bishop or Rome and there was no Pope until centuries later.
     
    CTZonEdit and Jessie like this.
  2. clark thompson

    clark thompson Advanced Poster

    Messages:
    254
    Gender:
    Male
    I think Jesus was referring t what Peter said being what the church was built upon and it is built on Jesus being the Son of God this is the rock of our salvation not Peter.
     
  3. Mungo

    Mungo Getting Started

    Messages:
    51
    Gender:
    Male
    Peter The Rock

    In the first chapter of John’s gospel we read of Jesus’ first meeting with Peter. At that point Peter is called Simon. Jesus says to Peter (vs 42)
    "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter)

    Renaming someone is always significant in the Bible. Kephas ( written in Greek as Cephas) is Aramaic for Rock (a big one)

    We come to the significance of this new name in Mt chapter 16:13-18

    We need to analyse this verse by verse.

    13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?"
    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. We’ll see why later. Jesus starts obliquely, asking them who other people say he is.

    14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
    The apostles give various answers to his question.

    15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"A direct question to them.
    Only one person answers him.

    16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
    Peter who replies and defines who Jesus is, a definition we still use today.

    17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
    Jesus commends Peter for his answer and blesses him. Note that Peter is the only one to reply and as a direct revelation from the Father.

    18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,…..
    Now Jesus continues to address Peter and in return defines who Peter is. He is Rock, and furthermore the rock on which Jesus will build his Church.

    Yes, Jesus is referred to as a Rock. which makes Jesus' renaming of Peter as Rock very significant. Jesus did not rename Peter as Petros but the Aramaic Kephas (a big rock).

    Paul refers to Peter as Kephas in 8 places in his letters to the Corinthinas and Galatians. For example:
    “and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.”(1Cor 15:5)
    “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas” (Gal 1:18)
    “and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars” (Gal 2:9)

    So Peter was known as Kephas - Rock. This is translated into Greek as Petros - rock.
     
  4. Mungo

    Mungo Getting Started

    Messages:
    51
    Gender:
    Male
    In each gospel Peter makes a profession of faith in Christ:

    Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mt 16:16)

    Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.” (Mk 8:29)

    And Peter answered, “The Christ of God.” (Lk 9:20)

    Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (Jn 6:28)

    However Matthew’s gospel has many details that are not in the other accounts. These are important so I will take Matthew’s account (Mt 16:13-19)

    13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “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, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

    But first there are three important points to note:

    1. Matthew is a Jew, writing to Jews. His gospel is full of references to the Old Testament to show how Jesus fulfils prophecies. Some are explicit and some are not. But they would have been noticed by his Jewish audience

    2. The theme of kingdom runs through Matthew’s gospel. Jesus is not just the Messiah but the promised Davidic king. He starts his gospel “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”

    It is Matthew who records the visit of the Magi who ask Herod “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East, and have come to worship him.” (Mt 2:2)

    3. A painting is not a photograph. By that I meant is photograph is a literal record of something. A painting is an interpretation with the elements in the picture selected and composed to give more information than the bare picture. In the same way the writers of scripture were not just journalists recording an event but they selected the elements they present to give more information than was on the surface. We have to look below that surface and consider each verse carefully.

    With those points in mind let us go through this passage.

    13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?"
    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. We’ll see why later.

    Jesus starts obliquely, asking them "Who do men say that the Son of man is?"

    Jesus constantly refers to himself as the Son of Man, but only Matthew uses this phrase leading up to Peter’s profession of faith. Matthew is pointing it up as important. Why?

    The ‘Son of Man’ recalls Daniel’s prophecy (Dan 7:13-14)
    I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven
    there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days
    and was presented before him.
    And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom,
    that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him;
    his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away,
    and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.


    The Son of Man is the promised future Davidic king

    This passage in Daniel comes in the middle of Daniels vision of the four beasts and their explanation. Daniel is particularly concerned with the fourth beast “terrible and dreadful and exceedingly strong; and it had great iron teeth”. This fourth beast is Rome.

    Only one person answers Jesus

    16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

    17 And Jesus answered him, "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, and on this rock I will build my church,…..

    Now we come back to the point about Caesarea Philippi. In that place where there is a massive cliff face, at the base of which were various temples to pagan gods. One of these was erected by Herod the Great to the Emperor of Rome, Augustus Caesar. (http://www.bible-history.com/biblestudy/caesarea-philippi.html).

    Jesus is contrasting these temples, built on rock, to the one he will build on Peter the Rock.

    Moreover Caesarea Phillipi, the ancient city of Paneas, was enlarged by Philip the Tetrach renamed Caesarea Philippi to honour the Emperor Tiberius Caesar and his own name of Philip. What Jesus and the apostles were looking at was not just an old pagan shrine, but represented pagan Rome with it’s emperor worship, the fourth beast of Daniel’s prophecy.

    Jesus is making a powerful visual statement. It is pagan Rome that his Church will confront and Rome that will be the centre of his Church.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2015
  5. Mungo

    Mungo Getting Started

    Messages:
    51
    Gender:
    Male
    In Matthew 16 Jesus is speaking to Peter alone. He is giving Peter the keys and the authority to bind and loose.

    In Matthew 18 Jesus is speaking to all the apostles and he gives them - as a group - the authority to bind and loose. He does not give them the keys.

    So Peter alone has the keys and Peter also singularly the power to bind and loose.

    Then apostles as a group has the power to bind and loose.

    That it how the Church has functioned over the centuries. The bishops, as the successors of the apostles, come together in great Councils to make decisions on doctrines.

    The Pope, as successor of the Peter, can (and sometimes does) make decisions on his own authority alone.
     
  6. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    The RCC didn't even exist for a thousand years later. It is not "The Church."And even then it was not the RCC you accept today.

    The Body of Christ from the cross to the Rapture/Second Coming, is "The Church."

    Peter never was recognized as the head of the Apostles, ever called that and really didn't like dealing with Gentiles at all.

    Peter was never the Bishop of Rome and there is no mention in the Bible of him in Rome. But others are stated as working there.

    As for speaking to Peter, alone, that is your interpretation. Read the passages, he was speaking to all the disciples in both.

    When Peter gave that answer he told him he was blessed, as Christ had called other blessed.

    It was a side note, then he went back to talking to all of them. A normal part of any group conversation is all, then one, then all, etc.

    It is your interpretation that only Peter was given the keys. Just like the RCC tries to say Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built, which is clearly false. Or the first Bishop of Rome, again false.

    I don't think you understand 'keys' means power and authority. It does not say 'keys and authority.' It just says keys.

    There is no mention of the establishment of a line of authority in the Bible or in early Church history. The RCC invented the Pope, Bishops (as they define them), RCC and a lot more over a thousand years later.

    Even then it evolved, grew, shrunk and otherwise changed from then on until even modern times.
     
  7. Mungo

    Mungo Getting Started

    Messages:
    51
    Gender:
    Male
    Plenty of opinions but with evidence to back them up.

    Like all conversations with you it seems very one sided. I make a structured argument backed up by scriopture.

    You just dismiss it off hand.

    Not much of a debate is it?
     
  8. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    It isn't opinion on what petros and petra mean, concerning stones. It is word definition found in Greek language.

    It isn't opinion that only Jesus was ever called petra in the Bible, it is in all the verses using that word.

    You cannot provide a single verse where it talks about the Church cornerstone, foundation, arch stone, stone etc is every used for anyone but Christ.

    'Keys and authority' is never used in the Bible, as keys means authority.\

    Peter was never recognized anywhere in the NT by anyone as being in charge of the Church. You are only able to claim it based on one verse which has been refuted.

    You offer opinions, I offer Biblical facts and word definitions. Opinions lose every time in that situation.
     
  9. Mungo

    Mungo Getting Started

    Messages:
    51
    Gender:
    Male
    On the contrary. I provide scripture to back up what I write.

    Apart from the OP you have provided no scripture to back up what you write.
     
  10. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    Really?

    One example of an error you made. You said "keys and authority" when it did not.

    As I said keys is authority, they are not separate meanings. All the disciples were given the same authority. There is no mention of Peter, you get the lions share and the others less.

    Peter was part of the group given the authority, not separate.
    Key = power and authority

    You cannot prove a claim with faulty claims unless you are accepted at face value.

    That is what the RCC relies on.
     
  11. Mungo

    Mungo Getting Started

    Messages:
    51
    Gender:
    Male

    Jesus gave Peter two things:
    1. The keys to the Kingdom of Heaven
    AND
    2. The authority to bind and loose.

    The keys represent a lot more than the authority to bind and loose (I'll come back to that)

    In Mt 18 Jesus have the authority to bind and loose to the apostles as a group. But he does not give them the keys. Therefore the keys have a significance seperate to the authority to bind and loose.

    What do the keys mean?

    To understand the significance of the keys we need to start in Revelation.
    And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write:
    “The words of the holy one, the true one,
    who has the key of David,
    who opens and no one shall shut,
    who shuts and no one opens.”

    (Rev 3:7)

    This Jesus who holds the key of David, who opens and shuts is the same Jesus who says to Peter:
    I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

    This passage was addressed to Peter and the passage needs to be interpreted with an understanding of a 1st century Jew.

    Prior to this Jesus has asked the apostles who he is. Peter has replied that he is the Messiah, the Son of the living God. He would understand that Jesus was the promised one who would sit on the throne of David (see Lk 1:32), the promised Davidic King who would rule for ever. All through Matthew’s gospel Jesus is referring to the kingdom. And Peter with his new revelation from the Father would understand this.

    Therefore when Jesus gives Peter the keys we have to look at the symbolism of that in terms of Davidic kings.

    The passage refers back to Isaiah 22: 20-23 when God deposes Shebna as the master of the palace and installs Heliakim instead:
    In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah,
    and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him,
    and will commit your authority to his hand;
    and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
    And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David;
    he shall open, and none shall shut;
    and he shall shut, and none shall open.
    And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place,
    and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house.


    Note the three lines I have emboldened which parallel verse 19 and Rev 3:7. Peter is being installed as the new master of the palace, the chief official in the kingdom under the king (Jesus).

    The master of the Palace was the highest official in the kingdom under the king.

    What does scripture say about such a person:
    1. He will be a father to the inhabitants
    2. He will be clothed with a robe
    3. He will be girded with a girdle [or sash]
    4. He will be given keys and authority.

    The Pope (father) has a robe, a sash and keys as the symbols of his authority and sits on a throne.
     
  12. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    You can keep trying to redefine passages and word meaning. But that is not in the Bible or in the language.

    You keep repeating the same claims over. I refuted you already. It was not to just Peter.

    Total invention that the keys relate to David.

    There is no throne for Peter in the Bible. Before God in Heaven will be the 12 thrones of the 12 patriarchs of the Israel. There are thrones given at the second coming.

    There is the throne of David, upon which Christ, and only Christ, sits.

    There is absolutely no mention of a throne for Peter anywhere.

    the key (authority) is for the House of David and the rule of Israeal at that time. Not for heaven or for all the kings that followed.

    All show keys as power and authority, per the word definition.

    Peter was never singled out. Nor given rule immediately under Christ. Pure RCC theology and teaching, not Biblical.

    As for your descriptive of the Pope, read your own verses. It is rule over Israel and father to the inhabitants of Israel. Nothing to do with the Pope.

    What you are not saying is the RCC practices Replacement Theology. That means the RCC replaced Israel and took over all their functions and attributes.

    That is totally false and Israel will return, as shown in Revelation and OT prophecy.
     
  13. Mungo

    Mungo Getting Started

    Messages:
    51
    Gender:
    Male
    As usual - not a single Bible quote to back up anything you say.

    Add that to the usual misinterpretation of what I say.

    It all adds up to a waste of time.

    God bless
     
  14. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    No misinterpretation on what you said, it is clear.

    Yes, a waste of time, because you won't look at facts, just RCC theology.

    So, time to agree to disagree and move on.
     
  15. Mungo

    Mungo Getting Started

    Messages:
    51
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, move on to another Forum. It's pretty obvious you will not tolerate any dissent from your views.
     
  16. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    You have not been silenced, so another false claim and accusation.
     
  17. Blake Henry

    Blake Henry New Member

    Messages:
    15
    Gender:
    Male
    To anyone that follows the RCC I would like to know why the Pope recently called Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas an "angel of peace" and presented Abbas with a medallion and explained that it represented the "angel of peace destroying the bad spirit of war." And why the Vatican finalized a bilateral treaty with the "state of Palestine" that made explicit its recognition of Palestinian statehood.

    I thought The Bible was crystal clear that the Lord Almighty will judge all nations who divide the Land of Israel.

    In Joel 3:2, the Lord says: “I will gather all the nations and bring them down to the valley of Jehoshaphat. Then I will enter into judgment with them there on behalf of My people and My inheritance, Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations; and they have divided up My land.” (3:2)

    Does it concern anyone that The Pope has called the leader of the State of Palestine an 'angle of peace'? The same Palestine that is home to Hamas who vow to destroy Israel? Has he lost his marbels? Does The Pope approve dividing up the land God gave to Israel?
     

Share This Page