English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Jesus established his kingdom (The Church [Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5–6, Rev. 21:14]) here on earth Mt. 16, 18.

2007-12-30 16:38:13 · 4 answers · asked by Original Christian 2 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

For Protestant fundamentalist read below

Peter and the Papacy

There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Ma

2007-12-30 16:39:14 · update #1

Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

2007-12-30 16:40:46 · update #2

Peter the Rock

Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was that—aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2—in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it?

2007-12-30 16:41:36 · update #3

What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.

2007-12-30 16:42:16 · update #4

Who is the rock?

Another alternative

Look at the Aramaic

look at site http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp

2007-12-30 16:43:42 · update #5

DR. THEO
Hi Doctor of reinventing Christianity. First of all we Catholic don’t invent, interpret whole bible, and add our self opinions base feelings. We received our faith from the mouth of Jesus Christ (Tradition) and our priest received the authority from Jesus Christ through his Apostles this goes though a lineage of authority to our times. This is base on Scripture.
Sorry, there is an error or twisting scripture on your interpretation of Peter. If you say, “"rock," he called Peter "Satan.", then you are also calling Jesus Satan we is call the rock. If you change rock to be diminutive rock in Greek you are Calling Jesus a Woman. Peter is rock is Aramaic and is the language that Jesus spoke. (The explanation on the Pope same as Eliacim ambassador of Jesus Christ is in Isaias 22,22 = Matt 16:19.)
Where in the world do you get you misinformation on “infallible” Pope? Please don’t say more or you end up RIDICULOUS.

2007-12-31 13:51:53 · update #6

4 answers

Jn 3;5 Mk 16;16 baptism required for entering heaven

Col 2:11-12 baptism has replaced circumcision

Mt 28:18-20 go baptize and teach all nations.

1Tim 3:15 Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth.

Jn 20:21 Jesus gave the Apostles His own mission.

2007-12-30 16:48:43 · answer #1 · answered by Lives7 6 · 2 0

The RCC has a funny way of twisting scripture......Maybe it's because they are led by "another spirit"....."Invention" is a past-time synomous with the RCC. In Matthew 16:23, just five verses after Jesus spoke of the "rock," he called Peter "Satan." There's no way Jesus was referring to Peter as the "rock" in Matthew 16:18. Jesus Christ is the ONLY Rock upon which the Church is built..."For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1st Corinthians 3:11).
Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter [Petros, the Greek word used here, means a diminutive rock or stone; you can look this up in an interlinear Bible or in other Bible helps], and on this [petra, the large form of that same word, meaning a great big rock mountain or a great foundation rock] I will build My church. Jesus was referring to Himself! Not Peter!.....[It was not Peter's church! Peter was not the head of the church, Christ is the head of the Church, as Scripture states clearly in Eph. 1:22-23 and many other places.], and the gates of [hell] Hades [hades means the grave. There will never cease to be people who are in God's true Church. It was to be a small Church-a scattered Church called the "little flock," but it would never be stamped out. And the hope of all true Christians is what? The resurrection from the dead.] shall not prevail against it."

The gates of the grave will not prevail against God's people. The gates of the grave will not prevail against God's Church.

Matt. 16:19

"And I will give you [He told Peter.] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

This is a rabbinical phrase meaning that Peter is the leader of the Apostles. That is, they could apply the Law of God to various situations and make a decision as to how to carry out its principles. They were not to make new laws. They were not to change God's Laws (or "invent" new ones), but they were able to make binding and loosing decisions in the Church of God. That was proper, as long as they stuck with God's Laws, which many in the false church that developed did not do.

The RCC thinks that in these previous few verses Peter was made an "infallible" Pope who could make no wrong decisions. That is RIDICULOUS! There has never been an infallible man, except Jesus Christ who was God in the flesh.

Peter was NOT made an infallible Pope. He was NOT any Pope at any time!

2007-12-31 01:24:32 · answer #2 · answered by TIAT 6 · 0 2

Dear Dr Theo,
Your particular "twist' on the Petrine Passages in Matt shows how dependent you are on the oral traditions(which do draw heavly from One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Tradition that your Protestant forbearers got from the Catholic Church) in interpretation of the Bible.
You do seem to Catholics to be bending over backwards to avoid seeing what we see so easily see in the Scriptures.
I have never found a situation in which Protestants or any other groups do not use some sort of oral traditon(or collection of them) or some sort of"interpreter of intrinsic authority"(often oneself or one's pastor of choise) in interpreting and applying Scripture.

I am convinced that finding doctrine through Bible Alone does not actually exist since traditions ,reason or lack thereof, church authorities and other "helps' always seem to used
nor does salvation come through Faith Alone( as faith/belief/conviction isolated from life and other virtues sice an isolated virtue becomes a vice).

All Trinitarian Christians have much ,much more in common(especially in essentials) than we have not in common.

While i find the fullness of Christian Faith and Church in the Catholic Church(of the Papal Communion),
i rejoice in fellowship in Christ that i have with other "Creed-believing Christians"
and we are in "real but impaired communion" in the communion of the Church in Heaven as members of the Communion of Saints and the mystical Body of Christ.

2007-12-31 07:50:17 · answer #3 · answered by James O 7 · 2 1

From the Bible.
"Engulf thy young with my holy seed and forever thou shall be part of my cult."
Paul 11:55

2007-12-31 00:41:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers