Peter NOT the 1st pope and the keys of the kingdom

DJT_47 · Oct 22, 2022

Matthew 16 analysis - Peter being the first so-called pope and provided with the keys of the kingdom

MATTHEW 16:15-19 -
Catholics erroneously use these verses, and primarily verse 19, as rationale and justification for claiming Peter was established thereby as the first pope. However, when you read and study these scriptures closely along with others related thereto, you clearly find that is not the case nor is the logic sound.

When linked with Matthew 18:18, Acts 2, Acts 10, and Acts 11, you get the complete and true understanding of the aforementioned Matthew 16 verses. Note Matthew 16:15-19 below:

15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH, THE EARTHLY KINGDOM -
First of all in the above scripture, notice it says "keys of the kingdom of heaven" and not "to the kingdom of heaven" which is of significance and often glossed-over by most, with "to" being superimposed for “of”. The word "of" means, 'origin', 'connected to', 'belonging to', from' or "pertaining to', whereas 'to' infers 'direction', 'going toward' or 'entry into'; "to" therefore would imply entry into the kingdom whereas "of" would imply the keys are not for entry, but rather, originating from, for, or emanating and/or coming from the kingdom; the origin of the keys being the kingdom of heaven.

Peter was entrusted with the "keys of the kingdom of heaven”, not 'keys to’ the kingdom of heaven or simply for the means of entry into it, and was empowered or sanctioned by heaven as confirmed by the Holy Ghost (Acts 2 and 10), with authority to bind his actions as well. The same words almost verbatim are used in Matthew 18:18-19, providing all of the Lord's disciples with authority likewise to bind on earth, however the reasons were different for this authority which excluded the "keys of the kingdom", and the authority was provided to all the disciples (ye, in the original Greek) as opposed to just Peter (thee per the original Greek) in Matthew 16.

When you consider or link Matthew 16 as relates to Peter and "the keys of the kingdom" with the book of Acts, you find that Peter was the one responsible for establishing the church, the earthly kingdom, first amongst the Jews at Jerusalem (Acts2), and then amongst the Gentiles commencing with the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10), which action he then defended to the council at Jerusalem in Acts 11. Peter being the one that established the early church, is therefore validation of Matthew 16 and the Lord’s unique statement to him, creating the setting and providing him with the opportunity, wherewithal, and confirmation by heaven via the Holy Ghost to do so (collectively, “the keys”). Note too, that the Holy Ghost falling on individuals uniquely as it did on both occasions, were the only times recorded in the bible for such happening in the manner it did. Both events, that of Acts 2 and Acts 10, were done with heavenly power and authority as noted above, since in both cases, the Holy Ghost demonstrated said power and authority by its physical presence, falling on individuals in both cases as a sign to those present, giving validity to, and substantiation from heaven of Peter’s actions, consistent with the use of the word “of” in Matthew 16:19.

THE ROCK -
In Matthew 16:18, it's obvious that Peter isn't the rock but rather Christ is, since he is recognized as being the chief cornerstone and/or foundation per the scriptures (Ephesians 2:20, Psalm 118:22-23, Isaiah 28:16, Matthew 21:42-44, 1Cor 3:11, Acts 4:11). Also, Peter in Greek is 'Petros' Πέτρος or Cephas, [masculine gender in the Greek meaning a stone or boulder (Strong's), or rock, individual stone, more insecure or moveable], and the “rock” in Matthew 16:18 is “petra”, πέτρα (feminine gender in the Greek), being rock, cliff, solid formation, solid foundation, bedrock, large rock formation, immoveable and enduring. Also, the church is referred to as being the “bride”, “chaste virgin”, “her” (feminine), etc., and Christ being the bridegroom, which further substantiates the use of “petra” rather than “petros”. If Christ's intent was to build his church upon Peter, why wouldn't he have said "and upon you I will build my church", or “upon petros, or you, Petros I will build my church” and not "upon this rock" (petra)? Also note that if Peter was established as the so-called first pope and head of the church (as erroneously claimed by Catholics), 1. Why did the Lord say “get thee behind me Satan” to him in Matthew 16:23? and 2. Why did the disciples quarrel amongst themselves (Luke 9:46) as to who would be the greatest among them, which occurred AFTER Peter’s statement as to who Jesus was (Luke 9:20 and parallel verse Mat 16:16)? and 3. Why was there contention between Peter and Paul as recorded in Acts 15:2 and Gal 2:11-14 if Peter was the head of the church? and 4. Why did the council at Jerusalem send Peter and John to Samaria (Acts8:14) if Peter was the head of the church, yet taking direction from the council at Jerusalem? Also note that no man (in a religious sense, Mat 23:8-9), is to be called father on earth, yet the pope is commonly referred to as the “Holy Father”. And too, Christ is the head of the church which is his body, not Peter (Eph 5:23, Col 1:18)

ResidentAlien · Oct 22, 2022

DJT_47 said:

Rocket science isn't really required to know that.

XavierJesusLovesIndia · Oct 22, 2022

Peter was not the first Pope according to whom? The Bishop of Rome. If you look at it historically, the same Church Fathers who tell us who wrote the Gospels also tell us that the Apostle Peter was the First Bishop of Rome. And very credible Church Historians, of every denomination, know that the first 4 or 10 list of Bishops of Rome included St. Peter the Apostle.

The succession list of bishops in the apostolic see of Rome of the first two centuries as provided by Philip Schaff (volume 2, History of the Christian Church, page 166) is --

St. Peter (d. 64 or 67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97) ...
"It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople...." (Schaff, page 166)

See also Wikipedia itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes#1st_century These are simple historical facts.

God Bless.

God Bless.

DJT_47 · Oct 23, 2022

XavierJesusLovesIndia said:

Peter was not the first Pope according to whom? The Bishop of Rome. If you look at it historically, the same Church Fathers who tell us who wrote the Gospels also tell us that the Apostle Peter was the First Bishop of Rome. And very credible Church Historians, of every denomination, know that the first 4 or 10 list of Bishops of Rome included St. Peter the Apostle.

The succession list of bishops in the apostolic see of Rome of the first two centuries as provided by Philip Schaff (volume 2, History of the Christian Church, page 166) is --

St. Peter (d. 64 or 67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97) ...
"It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople...." (Schaff, page 166)

See also Wikipedia itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes#1st_century These are simple historical facts.

God Bless.

God Bless.

A bishop is the same as an elder. If Peter was the first bishop of Rome, so what? That would simply mean he was an elder at the church in Rome, the body of christ in Rome which was only one congregation, no different than an elder at any local congregation.

Magenta · Oct 23, 2022

XavierJesusLovesIndia said:

Peter considered himself an elder among elders. He did not elevate himself as the RCC does.

1 Peter 5:1
New International Version
To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed:

New Living Translation
And now, a word to you who are elders in the churches. I, too, am an elder and a witness to the sufferings of
Christ. And I, too, will share in his glory when he is revealed to the whole world. As a fellow elder, I appeal to you:

English Standard Version
So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings
of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed:

Berean Standard Bible
As a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings, and a partaker of the glory to be revealed, I appeal to the elders among you

King James Bible
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:

New King James Version
The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness
of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed:

ResidentAlien · Oct 23, 2022

Scripture is irrelevant to a Roman Catholic. Their traditions trump scripture every time.

Dirtman · Oct 23, 2022

There is a massive difference between what is now known as pope and what was an elder or bishop. Pope is a erroneous title to start with. Pope means bridge, bishop means elder or servant. Popeism is way off the track.

DJT_47 · Oct 23, 2022

ResidentAlien said:

Which is a problem or the main problem with Catholicism causing all their other ones.

ResidentAlien · Oct 23, 2022

DJT_47 said:

Pretty much.

Nehemiah6 · Oct 23, 2022

XavierJesusLovesIndia said:

If Peter was the first bishop of Rome, then that should have been clearly spelled out in Paul's epistle to the Romans. The fact that Peter is not mentioned EVEN ONCE in this epistle is very significant. Peter was in fact the apostle to "the circumcision" (the Jews) and he was one of the leaders of the church at Jerusalem. His connection to Rome has been fabricated by the Catholic church.

So what were "the keys of the Kingdom"? They were the preaching of the Gospel. Firstly to the Jews by Peter (on the day of Pentecost), and secondly to the Gentiles in the home of Cornelius (also by Peter). Peter was extremely reluctant to associate with the Gentiles, but God compelled him to do so. And after Peter preached, all the Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit and were them baptized as believers.

As to the term "bishop" (Gk episkopos) it means overseer, and was in fact applicable to all elders. Every apostolic church had a plurality of elders, and the elders were in fact the pastors/shepherds/elders/bishops of each church. There was no one man over the elders, since they were all a part of what Paul calls "the presbytery" (council of elders). This was derived from the Hebrew custom of elders in Israel, which went all the way back to Moses. But shortly after the passing of the apostles, "bishops" began to rule over elders.

Evmur · Oct 23, 2022

XavierJesusLovesIndia said:

Peter was not the first Pope according to whom? The Bishop of Rome. If you look at it historically, the same Church Fathers who tell us who wrote the Gospels also tell us that the Apostle Peter was the First Bishop of Rome. And very credible Church Historians, of every denomination, know that the first 4 or 10 list of Bishops of Rome included St. Peter the Apostle.

The succession list of bishops in the apostolic see of Rome of the first two centuries as provided by Philip Schaff (volume 2, History of the Christian Church, page 166) is --

St. Peter (d. 64 or 67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97) ...
"It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople...." (Schaff, page 166)

See also Wikipedia itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes#1st_century These are simple historical facts.

God Bless.

God Bless.

Jesus said nothing about successors ... can't have a succession of foundations, it's a nonsense.

XavierJesusLovesIndia · Oct 23, 2022

ResidentAlien said:

Nope, Scripture is of the utmost relevance to us. We believe it is the inerrant and inspired Word of God; and it was also the Catholic Church, in the 4th Century (using Apostolic Tradition btw) that determined the 27 Book New Testament Canon all Christians use today. It just isn't the sole thing we go by, but we consult Apostolic Tradition also in discerning Apostolic Doctrine. The Bible itself commands to hold to the Tradition the Apostles delivered to the Church, whether orally or in writing: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." (2 Thess 2:15) Apostolic Tradition makes many things implicitly contained in Scripture more explicit. For e.g. to mention just one thing brought up on this very thread, are the Offices of Bishop and Presbyter the same, or distinct?

Tradition clarifies such questions. They are distinct. Read for e.g. the Epistle of St. Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of St. John the Apostle, who died around 107 A.D. Shortly before his heroic martyrdom for Our Lord Jesus Christ, he wrote:
"Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid."

Taken from: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm Here, before A.D. 107, you have everything that you have in a Catholic (or Orthodox) Church today. Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons. Eucharist etc. He also refers to the Catholic Church here.

Scripture itself also suggests the same, by using two distinctly different Greek words. "ἐπισκόπους (episkopous) as in Acts 20:28 for Bishop. And in Rom 15:16, Paul refers to himself as ἱερουργοῦντα (hierourgounta) i.e. having a Priestly Office. See the NASB which translates it correctly and check out the Greek below here: https://biblehub.com/romans/15-16.htm

The word for Presbyter, who is junior to a Bishop, often translated elder, is πρεσβυτέρους (presbyterous) as in Titus 1:5.

So how do you prove these are one and the same office? If someone used one word for General, and another word for Commander, even if you knew nothing else of Generals and Commanders, you would presume they were distinct offices.

For us, we settle the doubt using Apostolic Tradition. Universal Tradition, East and West, has always held Bishops and Presbyters to be distinct from the very beginning. Bishops are more senior Presbyters; ordinary Presbyters are junior.

As for the Bible on the Papacy, the verses are very clear. Posting them in the next post as it's a different issue from the Bishop/Presbyter thing.

XavierJesusLovesIndia · Oct 23, 2022

1. Jesus changes Simon's name to Peter which means Rock. When God changed Abram's name to Abraham, He was giving him a new function, a new responsibility. Similarly, when Christ renamed Simon as Rock, it had a purpose. What was it?

Here is a Protestant commentary: "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)" Taken from: http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm

2. Again, it is confirmed by the fact that Christ gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. He explained that the purpose or function of these keys was to bind and loose on Earth what He promised would be bound and loosed in Heaven. In Jewish Rabbinic terminology, bind and loose was understood to mean binding pronouncements on doctrine and discipline. Source: "M. Eugene Boring (Disciples of Christ), commenting on the "keys of the kingdom of heaven," "binding" and "loosing" from Matthew 16:19 --"The 'kingdom of heaven' is represented by authoritative teaching, the promulgation of authoritative Halakha that lets heaven's power rule in earthly things...Peter's role as holder of the keys is fulfilled now, on earth, as chief teacher of the church....The keeper of the keys has authority within the house as administrator and teacher (cf. Isa 22:20-25, which may have influenced Matthew here).

The language of binding and loosing is rabbinic terminology for authoritative teaching, for having the authority to interpret the Torah and apply it to particular cases, declaring what is permitted and what is not permitted. Jesus, who has taught with authority (7:29) and has given his authority to his disciples (10:1, 8), here gives the primary disciple the authority to teach in his name -- to make authoritative decisions pertaining to Christian life as he applies the teaching of Jesus to concrete situations in the life of the church." (Boring, page 346)

Look at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. There was doctrinal dispute over whether circumcision was necessary for Christians. St. Peter was the first to rise up and decide the disputed question. This is what "binding and loosing" means.

Acts 15:"5 "But some believers from the party of the Pharisees stood up and declared, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.” 6So the apostles and elders met to look into this matter.

7After much discussion, Peter got up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you that the Gentiles would hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8And God, who knows the heart, showed His approval by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as He did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for He cleansed their hearts by faith."

Magenta, agreed that Peter was an elder/presbyter. Every Bishop is a Presbyter, though every Presbyter is not a Bishop. Bishops can ordain Presbyters, but Presbyters cannot ordain Bishops. The Apostles ordained Presbyters wherever they went. They were Bishops. Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons are offices that have succeeded to the three offices in Israel: High Priests, Priests and Levites. In the OT, God says of the Gentiles: "And I will select some of them also to be priests and Levites,” says the LORD." (Isa 66:21). That has happened now in the New Covenant.

God Bless.

Inquisitor · Oct 23, 2022

DJT_47 said:

Matthew 16 analysis - Peter being the first so-called pope and provided with the keys of the kingdom

MATTHEW 16:15-19 -
Catholics erroneously use these verses, and primarily verse 19, as rationale and justification for claiming Peter was established thereby as the first pope. However, when you read and study these scriptures closely along with others related thereto, you clearly find that is not the case nor is the logic sound.

When linked with Matthew 18:18, Acts 2, Acts 10, and Acts 11, you get the complete and true understanding of the aforementioned Matthew 16 verses. Note Matthew 16:15-19 below:

15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH, THE EARTHLY KINGDOM -
First of all in the above scripture, notice it says "keys of the kingdom of heaven" and not "to the kingdom of heaven" which is of significance and often glossed-over by most, with "to" being superimposed for “of”. The word "of" means, 'origin', 'connected to', 'belonging to', from' or "pertaining to', whereas 'to' infers 'direction', 'going toward' or 'entry into'; "to" therefore would imply entry into the kingdom whereas "of" would imply the keys are not for entry, but rather, originating from, for, or emanating and/or coming from the kingdom; the origin of the keys being the kingdom of heaven.

Peter was entrusted with the "keys of the kingdom of heaven”, not 'keys to’ the kingdom of heaven or simply for the means of entry into it, and was empowered or sanctioned by heaven as confirmed by the Holy Ghost (Acts 2 and 10), with authority to bind his actions as well. The same words almost verbatim are used in Matthew 18:18-19, providing all of the Lord's disciples with authority likewise to bind on earth, however the reasons were different for this authority which excluded the "keys of the kingdom", and the authority was provided to all the disciples (ye, in the original Greek) as opposed to just Peter (thee per the original Greek) in Matthew 16.

When you consider or link Matthew 16 as relates to Peter and "the keys of the kingdom" with the book of Acts, you find that Peter was the one responsible for establishing the church, the earthly kingdom, first amongst the Jews at Jerusalem (Acts2), and then amongst the Gentiles commencing with the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10), which action he then defended to the council at Jerusalem in Acts 11. Peter being the one that established the early church, is therefore validation of Matthew 16 and the Lord’s unique statement to him, creating the setting and providing him with the opportunity, wherewithal, and confirmation by heaven via the Holy Ghost to do so (collectively, “the keys”). Note too, that the Holy Ghost falling on individuals uniquely as it did on both occasions, were the only times recorded in the bible for such happening in the manner it did. Both events, that of Acts 2 and Acts 10, were done with heavenly power and authority as noted above, since in both cases, the Holy Ghost demonstrated said power and authority by its physical presence, falling on individuals in both cases as a sign to those present, giving validity to, and substantiation from heaven of Peter’s actions, consistent with the use of the word “of” in Matthew 16:19.

THE ROCK -
In Matthew 16:18, it's obvious that Peter isn't the rock but rather Christ is, since he is recognized as being the chief cornerstone and/or foundation per the scriptures (Ephesians 2:20, Psalm 118:22-23, Isaiah 28:16, Matthew 21:42-44, 1Cor 3:11, Acts 4:11). Also, Peter in Greek is 'Petros' Πέτρος or Cephas, [masculine gender in the Greek meaning a stone or boulder (Strong's), or rock, individual stone, more insecure or moveable], and the “rock” in Matthew 16:18 is “petra”, πέτρα (feminine gender in the Greek), being rock, cliff, solid formation, solid foundation, bedrock, large rock formation, immoveable and enduring. Also, the church is referred to as being the “bride”, “chaste virgin”, “her” (feminine), etc., and Christ being the bridegroom, which further substantiates the use of “petra” rather than “petros”. If Christ's intent was to build his church upon Peter, why wouldn't he have said "and upon you I will build my church", or “upon petros, or you, Petros I will build my church” and not "upon this rock" (petra)? Also note that if Peter was established as the so-called first pope and head of the church (as erroneously claimed by Catholics), 1. Why did the Lord say “get thee behind me Satan” to him in Matthew 16:23? and 2. Why did the disciples quarrel amongst themselves (Luke 9:46) as to who would be the greatest among them, which occurred AFTER Peter’s statement as to who Jesus was (Luke 9:20 and parallel verse Mat 16:16)? and 3. Why was there contention between Peter and Paul as recorded in Acts 15:2 and Gal 2:11-14 if Peter was the head of the church? and 4. Why did the council at Jerusalem send Peter and John to Samaria (Acts8:14) if Peter was the head of the church, yet taking direction from the council at Jerusalem? Also note that no man (in a religious sense, Mat 23:8-9), is to be called father on earth, yet the pope is commonly referred to as the “Holy Father”. And too, Christ is the head of the church which is his body, not Peter (Eph 5:23, Col 1:18)

Early church history contains no mention of a 'pope'. There were bishops in every church and there were many churches across the world. The Roman church in the first, second, third, and fourth centuries, was equal but not greater than, the other churches.

The Greek Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church are examples of two churches. That disagreed with the Roman Church and went their separate ways. These churches were all first century churches.

The problem with the Roman Church was that it was positioned in the capitol of the Roman Empire. So it was consumed with it's own importance, it saw itself as the head of Rome's earthly power and kingdom.

The Roman Church was a very unfortunate church, corrupted by the power and authority of the Roman Empire.

ResidentAlien · Oct 23, 2022

XavierJesusLovesIndia said:

Sure it is, whatever you say.

Magenta · Oct 23, 2022

XavierJesusLovesIndia said:

“Do not be afraid,” Jesus said to Simon. “From now on you will catch men."

Luke 5:10b ^ From fisher of fish, to fisher of men.

Aaron56 · Oct 23, 2022

In Rome, there were many Pontifex Maxmimi (link) before Peter. When the Romans chose Christianity to be the state religion, to make the church serve the empire, they simply began a new line of leaders called "Popes". But they also kept with their tradition and gave the title "Pontifex Maximus" to each new pope.

In tradition, the PM was the ultimate governor of religious matters. In polytheistic Rome, the office of PM arranged celebrations, alms giving events, and ceremonies of all the temples.

For example, the Vestal Virgins (link) were women who took a vow of chastity and attended the hearth fires: sacred fires that must always burn. Because of their vow they were given high status within Roman culture.

Here's a picture of some in action:

Look familiar? Of course. They are Rome's modern day "nuns". Rome simply repurposed that sect of religious virgins (that began ~ 500 B.C.) into their own brand of religious virgins.

Popes = Pontifex Maximus
Cardinals = Roman Senate
Bishops = Governors
Nuns = Vestal Virgins
Queen of Heaven = Roman Goddess worship

This was all done to appease the poly-theistic citizens of the Roman Empire.

XavierJesusLovesIndia · Oct 23, 2022

Inquisitor said:

Hi Inquisitor. Have you read what second century Bishop of Lyons St. Irenaeus wrote about the Church of Rome. Saint Irenaeus had also spent a significant time in Asia, and thus is a witness to the Tradition of both East and West.

Here is what he writes on the Church of Rome in the 2nd Century: "by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem].

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels.

From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth."

Taken from: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

Both St. Linus and St. Clement (the 2nd and 4th Popes/Bishops of Rome) are mentioned by St. Paul in Sacred Scripture.

Also, in the above, Irenaeus mentions how doctrinal controversies in the Early Church were resolved. A sect called the Gnostics arose and claimed the God of the Old Testament was an "evil god". The Church of Rome, on behalf of the Universal Church, refuted this by Epistles from St. Clement of Rome, and this is what St. Irenaeus summarizes above.

Wiki links on these Early Church Fathers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Rome
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Linus

Scripture on Linus: "21Do your best to come before winter. Eubulus sends greetings to you, as do Pudens and Linus and Claudia and all the brothers and sisters." (2 Tim 4:21)
Scripture on Clement: "And I urge you also, true companion, help these women who labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the Book of Life." (Phil 4:3)

Irenaeus is also one of our Early Church witnesses as to when the Gospels were written. He says Matthew wrote when Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome. Both Peter and Paul crowned their Ministry with Martyrdom under Nero in 67 A.D.

All these are pure facts of Sacred Scripture and Church History. Unfortunately, liberalism didn't begin in the 20th century. also, some 16th century Christian writers, sadly, were liberal, and ignored anything in Scripture or History they didn't like.

Magenta, agreed. Being a fisher of men was part of what Peter was called to do. May we all be good fishers of the Lord. In Jesus' Name. Amen. As I mentioned on other threads, I am a Catholic, yes, but also a fairly Ecumenical Christian. God Bless.

SomeDisciple · Oct 23, 2022

DJT_47 said:

Someone also recently pointed out- and it's shown in the literal translation versions of the bible that this could be better rendered:

Berean Literal Bible
I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you might bind on the earth shall have been bound in the heavens, and whatever you might loose on the earth shall have been loosed in the heavens."
Young's Literal Translation
and I will give to thee the keys of the reign of the heavens, and whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens.'

I think this reflects a better picture of the flow of authority from heaven to the church. The KJV et. al. seem to paint a picture of heaven reacting to what is bidden by church leaders on earth, but I think that's backward; and I think this is significant because it completely contradicts the narrative of 'churches' that will try to use the scriptures to mentally dominate people.

There are a lot of language factors at play with this exchange in Matthew 16- and the meaning of the passage can change depending on how it's translated, and where the translators put punctuation. I don't think Peter is the rock on which the church was built either- but rather it is the revelation from the Father that Jesus is the son of the living God... and possibly something else- depending on how you read Matt16:18. Most translations render it something like:

15He says to them, “But whom do you pronounce Me to be?”
16And Simon Peter answering said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17And Jesus answering, said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona! For flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but My Father in the heavens. 18And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church...
To me this says Peter is a stone of the church building that is built on the Rock, rather than the rock himself.

But if verse 18 is punctuated differently, it can become:
And I also say to you that you are, Peter: and on this rock I will build my Church...
This is essentially the revelation that the Church is the body of Christ and are the sons of the living God along with Jesus.

Either way, I'm pretty sure God is the rock, and "this rock" refers back to "My Father" in some way.

-May these words of my mouth and this meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer.
-The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer;
-Praise the LORD, who is my rock. He trains my hands for war and gives my fingers skill for battle.
-To you, LORD, I call; you are my Rock, do not turn a deaf ear to me. For if you remain silent, I will be like those who go down to the pit.
-I say to God my Rock, “Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?”
-They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

"I say to you that you are Peter, and..." is very awkward, and besides the fact that most of us feel intuitively that Peter is not "this rock", I don't believe the disciples, who were mostly Jews, would accept "this rock" upon which the church was built as being anything other than God.

DJT_47 · Oct 23, 2022

XavierJesusLovesIndia said:

Nope, Scripture is of the utmost relevance to us. We believe it is the inerrant and inspired Word of God; and it was also the Catholic Church, in the 4th Century (using Apostolic Tradition btw) that determined the 27 Book New Testament Canon all Christians use today. It just isn't the sole thing we go by, but we consult Apostolic Tradition also in discerning Apostolic Doctrine. The Bible itself commands to hold to the Tradition the Apostles delivered to the Church, whether orally or in writing: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." (2 Thess 2:15) Apostolic Tradition makes many things implicitly contained in Scripture more explicit. For e.g. to mention just one thing brought up on this very thread, are the Offices of Bishop and Presbyter the same, or distinct?

Tradition clarifies such questions. They are distinct. Read for e.g. the Epistle of St. Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of St. John the Apostle, who died around 107 A.D. Shortly before his heroic martyrdom for Our Lord Jesus Christ, he wrote:
"Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid."

Taken from: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm Here, before A.D. 107, you have everything that you have in a Catholic (or Orthodox) Church today. Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons. Eucharist etc. He also refers to the Catholic Church here.

Scripture itself also suggests the same, by using two distinctly different Greek words. "ἐπισκόπους (episkopous) as in Acts 20:28 for Bishop. And in Rom 15:16, Paul refers to himself as ἱερουργοῦντα (hierourgounta) i.e. having a Priestly Office. See the NASB which translates it correctly and check out the Greek below here: https://biblehub.com/romans/15-16.htm

The word for Presbyter, who is junior to a Bishop, often translated elder, is πρεσβυτέρους (presbyterous) as in Titus 1:5.

So how do you prove these are one and the same office? If someone used one word for General, and another word for Commander, even if you knew nothing else of Generals and Commanders, you would presume they were distinct offices.

For us, we settle the doubt using Apostolic Tradition. Universal Tradition, East and West, has always held Bishops and Presbyters to be distinct from the very beginning. Bishops are more senior Presbyters; ordinary Presbyters are junior.

As for the Bible on the Papacy, the verses are very clear. Posting them in the next post as it's a different issue from the Bishop/Presbyter thing.

Thete are also distinct warnings in the bible about adding to, taking away from, or disobeying God's word, i.e.; Deuteronemy 4:2, 12:32, Rev 22:19, Galatians 1:6-9, Proverbs, 30:56, which is a reason you shouldn't use other supplemental documents, but rather God's word exclusively, not traditions of men. Also clear warning about following man's traditions such as in Colossians 2:8. The church was already starting to go off the rails as can be seen in the NT letters such as 1 Cor and Hebrews.

Peter NOT the 1st pope and the keys of the kingdom

Active member

Well-known member

Banned

Active member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Banned

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Active member