The origins of the RC Denomination?

[Bonnie]

who was the only one given the keys? check isaiah22: 22 for the meaning of it.

That's nice, but all church leaders who teach and preach the truth have the keys.

for your information, the original aramaic is 'cephas', which means simply 'rock'. There would have been no 'small rock' to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter.

For your information, I have known about this for YEARS. But--it makes absolutely NO difference, because the NT was written in GREEK and in GREEK the HS inspired the writer to use two different words meaning "rock", as I pointed out. The "Petra" is Christ Jesus, as even Paul says, in one of his epistles.

Baptist scholar D.A. Carson, writes, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary,

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 a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses.'
the two clauses.

Again, that's nice, but the NT was written in Greek, not Aramaic, where there IS a distinction between Petra and Petros. Also, Carson said nothing here about the rock the church is built upon is Peter. But on what page is this from, in the Expositor's Bible Commentary?


But I can quote commentaries, too--like this one:

Upon This Rock

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus said to Simon, “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” What was the bedrock Jesus was referring to?

blog.tms.edu

And this one:

https://bibleportal.com/commentary/section/expositor-s-bible-commentary/213697

I think this is the same reference you quoted from. If so, do see what the above scholar says about Matt. 16:18.

Also, too many people forget the demonstrative "this" in "upon THIS Rock." Jesus was speaking directly to Peter, so if He had meant Peter, He would have said "...and upon you, Peter, I will build my church...but He said "THIS."

No, the church's one Foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord and God and Savior--not a mere man like Peter.

Dr. Oscar Cullman, a contributing editor to this work, writes:

The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text . . . suggests a material identity between petra and Petros . . . as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. . . . Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . . . The idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable. . . . 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. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.

Never heard of him. What page is this from, in the book you referenced? But it is just his opinion. I think he is wrong. I am going by the Greek that the NT was written in and what the rest of the NT testifies to. Jesus would never have built His church on a fallible human being. Even Paul says that the foundation of the church is Jesus Christ. NOT Peter.

It was Peter who made the final decision in the Jerusalem council for the entire church.. What James said is a pastoral decision for the church in jerusalem where he is the bishop.

That is a load of malarky, ramcam! What was decided in Acts 15 affected the ENTIRE church. Are Catholics so desperate to promote Peter as pope that they must close their eyes to the actual words of Scripture???

12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

16 “‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things.
12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

16 “‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things.

19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

The Council’s Letter to Gentile Believers​

22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers....

Sure looks as if James made the final judgment, after appealing to Scripture, and then the WHOLE CHURCH decided to choose some men to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. Nothing is said about Peter here making any decision.

So, your church has to lie to itself and to its membership about this passage, in order to bolster the idea that Peter was the first pope and leader of the entire church, to bolster its power and prestige among its membership. For shame.

 

[dingoling.]

No, what I wrote is completely true. Just because you disagree with what I wrote doesn't mean what I wrote is false.

Just because you disagree with what I wrote doesn't mean that what I wrote is false.

 

[LifeIn]

In this case NOTHING.

What you have shown by cutting and ignoring my rebuttal is that you either cannot or will not address the issues it raises. Here is what you cut from my post that still needs to be addressed:

If there was some other church besides the one that became known as the Catholic church that dominated 1st and 2nd century Christianity, where are the historical documents of that church denouncing Pope Sixtus the first, for example, who lead the Church from 115 AD to 125 AD for example, or Pope Hyginus who led the Church from 136 AD to 140 AD, or Pope Victor I who led the Church from 189 AD to 199 AD? There is a rich set of historical documents, not Church documents, but documents from secular historians, documenting that Church. So by the year 200 AD the Church had already assumed the name "Catholic" this church was well known in the Roman Empire and beyond. But if there was some other Church that was more "real" than the Catholic Church, there must be some documents, equivalent to today's "Got Questions" website, calling out the Catholic Church for being a fake Christianity. It is unimaginable that the "real" church would have remained silent during those years. So please cite the historical evidence from the "real" Christians of that era. Where is the rebuke of Ambrose of Milan, a prominent member of the Catholic Church? Where is the rebuke of Augustine of Hippo for his supposed heresy of supporting the Catholic Church? If history is as you say, and the "real" Christians were not in the Catholic Church, where are the histories describing them?

Would you like to give it another try, or don't you have an answer?

Catholicism is riddled with false doctrines adopted from PAGAN religious systems along the way. You are totally unable to defend them Biblically, and your Present Pope thing is a joke.

Does that make you feel better, venting like that?

 

[LifeIn]

Again, that's nice, but the NT was written in Greek, not Aramaic, where there IS a distinction between Petra and Petros.

The ultimate question is what did Jesus mean. Since Jesus did not speak in Greek, he could not have used the gender distinction in Greek to make his meaning clear. The NT that eventually became rendered in Greek was originally an aural tradition passed down from Peter or the other apostles who heard Jesus speak. The Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is perfectly consistent with the use of "Petra" and "Petros" as being as required distinction because of Greek grammar. There is no other way it could have been written, even if the intention was to convey that Jesus meant to build his Church on Peter as the rock. How else could they have written it?

Also, too many people forget the demonstrative "this" in "upon THIS Rock." Jesus was speaking directly to Peter, so if He had meant Peter, He would have said "...and upon you, Peter, I will build my church...but He said "THIS."

I see this attempts to answer the question I raised in the previous paragraph, but not satisfactorily. Your complaint is that it is improper to use the grammatical third person instead of the second person when referring to the the person you are talking to. But your interpretation is that Jesus is referring to himself - not to Peter. In that case he should have used the grammatical FIRST person as in "...and upon myself I will build my church". So the fact the he used the grammatical third person does not settle it one way or the other. Both interpretations (Jesus or Peter) are not in accord with standard grammatical practice. So what else do we have to go on?

Well, we could look at context. Peter has just declared Jesus to be the Christ - the long-awaited Messiah of God. Jesus immediately commends Peter and declares his confession to be divinely inspired ("Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.") Jesus goes on to say "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." All these statements were commendations of Peter by Jesus. Now consider dropping in the middle of all these commendations to Peter, the seemingly non-sequitur of "Oh, and by the way, I'm going to build my church on myself, so don't go getting any big ideas, OK?" That is how we would have to see Matthew 16:18 in context to follow your interpretation. Can you see how it just seems out of place to mention that fact in this context, and how it is much more consistent with the context to understand Matthew 16:18 as referring to Peter, just like all the other verses in Matthew 17:16-19?

 

[balshan]

No, what I wrote is completely true. Just because you disagree with what I wrote doesn't mean what I wrote is false.

The poster never shows why she/he thinks it is false. Therefore it is a pointless posts but you are always careful with what you post.

 

[balshan]

Just because you disagree with what I wrote doesn't mean that what I wrote is false.

Again prove what Bonnie posted is false, you never prove your claims.

 

[dingoling.]

Again prove what Bonnie posted is false, you never prove your claims.

It has already been done numerous times. Disagreeing with our interpretation doesn't mean that you are right.

 

[balshan]

It has already been done numerous times. Disagreeing with our interpretation doesn't mean that you are right.

No it hasn't. Disagreeing with your interpretation of the RCs false interpretation does mean it is false, you disagreeing with ours doesn't make you right.

 

[dingoling.]

No it hasn't. Disagreeing with your interpretation of the RCs false interpretation does mean it is false, you disagreeing with ours doesn't make you right.

So there is no proof?

 

[balshan]

So there is no proof?

You are the one that claimed the post by Bonnie was false, so you have no proof therefore Bonnie is right.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

What you have shown by cutting and ignoring my rebuttal is that you either cannot or will not address the issues it raises. Here is what you cut from my post that still needs to be addressed:

If there was some other church besides the one that became known as the Catholic church that dominated 1st and 2nd century Christianity, where are the historical documents of that church denouncing Pope Sixtus the first, for example, who lead the Church from 115 AD to 125 AD for example, or Pope Hyginus who led the Church from 136 AD to 140 AD, or Pope Victor I who led the Church from 189 AD to 199 AD? There is a rich set of historical documents, not Church documents, but documents from secular historians, documenting that Church. So by the year 200 AD the Church had already assumed the name "Catholic" this church was well known in the Roman Empire and beyond. But if there was some other Church that was more "real" than the Catholic Church, there must be some documents, equivalent to today's "Got Questions" website, calling out the Catholic Church for being a fake Christianity. It is unimaginable that the "real" church would have remained silent during those years. So please cite the historical evidence from the "real" Christians of that era. Where is the rebuke of Ambrose of Milan, a prominent member of the Catholic Church? Where is the rebuke of Augustine of Hippo for his supposed heresy of supporting the Catholic Church? If history is as you say, and the "real" Christians were not in the Catholic Church, where are the histories describing them?

Would you like to give it another try, or don't you have an answer?



Does that make you feel better, venting like that?

Since it's all political foolishness, and non-biblical error, what's there to address?

There IS ONE true catholic (universal) church that Jesus commissioned, and it's rolling along perfectly, peopled by folks physically alive and physically dead, and growing constantly as people are born again of the Holy SPirit. It's not at the present time an existing Religio/political organization / denomination. The "Catholic Churches" (Roman and otherwise, has always been "Just another" collection of Denominational systems, which did undergo a Significant split when the Roman Denominations tossed the Orthodox denominations under the bus, and grabbed the primacy back in 1500.

Your ERROR (hopefully not fatal) is that you've been propagandized to believe that the Catholic Church (Roman and otherwise) IS that catholic church built on Jesus perfect SIN OFFERING in the cross. It's not, and the Roman operation never was.

Your only PERSONALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE is whether or not you've become part of the REAL Church of Jesus Christ by FAITH in the Sin offering of Jesus on Calvary. Eph 2:8,9. WHat are you trusting?? What Rome says, or what the BIBLE SAYS.

 

[Bonnie]

Just because you disagree with what I wrote doesn't mean that what I wrote is false.

Can't be original and come up with your own wording, but must just copy mine, eh?

There is NO evidence from the Bible for the establishment of a pope, a single human leader over all the church. Not a jot or tittle.

 

[Bonnie]

The ultimate question is what did Jesus mean. Since Jesus did not speak in Greek, he could not have used the gender distinction in Greek to make his meaning clear. The NT that eventually became rendered in Greek was originally an aural tradition passed down from Peter or the other apostles who heard Jesus speak. The Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is perfectly consistent with the use of "Petra" and "Petros" as being as required distinction because of Greek grammar. There is no other way it could have been written, even if the intention was to convey that Jesus meant to build his Church on Peter as the rock. How else could they have written it?


I see this attempts to answer the question I raised in the previous paragraph, but not satisfactorily. Your complaint is that it is improper to use the grammatical third person instead of the second person when referring to the the person you are talking to. But your interpretation is that Jesus is referring to himself - not to Peter. In that case he should have used the grammatical FIRST person as in "...and upon myself I will build my church". So the fact the he used the grammatical third person does not settle it one way or the other. Both interpretations (Jesus or Peter) are not in accord with standard grammatical practice. So what else do we have to go on?

Well, we could look at context. Peter has just declared Jesus to be the Christ - the long-awaited Messiah of God. Jesus immediately commends Peter and declares his confession to be divinely inspired ("Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.") Jesus goes on to say "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." All these statements were commendations of Peter by Jesus. Now consider dropping in the middle of all these commendations to Peter, the seemingly non-sequitur of "Oh, and by the way, I'm going to build my church on myself, so don't go getting any big ideas, OK?" That is how we would have to see Matthew 16:18 in context to follow your interpretation. Can you see how it just seems out of place to mention that fact in this context, and how it is much more consistent with the context to understand Matthew 16:18 as referring to Peter, just like all the other verses in Matthew 17:16-19?

Jesus said "upon THIS
Rock" after Peter's great confession, that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God." THAT is the "Petra" Jesus would build His church on, not on the little Petros, Peter. He did NOT say "upon YOU Petros". Did He?

All of Scripture testifies to GOD being the Rock of our salvation, with Jesus the Cornerstone, the foundation of the church--not to a mere human being like Peter.

Your church has been lying about this for centuries, leading its members astray, teaching them falsely, so it can bolster its power and control over them. Shameful.

 

[Bonnie]

So there is no proof?

Prove I am wrong.

 

[Bonnie]

Here are the proof texts from the Bible, that Jesus is the foundation of the church, that the church is built upon God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Even from the OT we have proof that GOD is the Rock of our salvation, not a mere man, not even Moses!

Ps. 18:
“I love You, O Lord, my strength.”
2 The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer,
My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge;
My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold....
For who is God, but the Lord?
And who is a Rock, except our God...

Isaiah 17:10--"
For you have forgotten the God of your salvation
And have not remembered the Rock of your refuge."

Ps. 62:2--
"My soul waits in silence for God only;
From Him is my salvation.
2 He only is my Rock and my salvation,
My stronghold; I shall not be greatly shaken..."

Ps. 71:1-3--
"
In You, O Lord, I have taken refuge;
Let me never be ashamed.
2 In Your righteousness deliver me and rescue me;
Incline Your ear to me and save me.
3 Be to me a rock of habitation to which I may continually come;
You have given commandment to save me,
For You are my rock and my fortress."

Ps. 94:22--
"
22 But the Lord has been my stronghold,
And my God the Rock of my refuge.

Is. 44:8--
"
8 ‘Do not tremble and do not be afraid;
Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it?
And you are My witnesses.
Is there any God besides Me,
Or is there any other Rock?
I know of none.’”

This is OT reference to GOD as the Rock, not man, not even Moses or David or Isaiah. GOD.

1 Cor. 10:4--
"3 and all ate the same spiritual food; 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the Rock was Christ."

"Rock" here is "petra" same as it is in "upon this Rock." Jesus is the Rock,, not Peter, the Petros, the chunk of Rock.

The NT shows us who the foundation of the church is:

1 Cor. 3:11--
"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

Eph. 2:19-20--
"19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone..."

Note here that part of the foundation is made up of the apostles, plural--not just Peter.

Rev. 21--
" 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, 11 having the glory of God. Her brilliance was like a very costly stone, as a stone of crystal-clear jasper. 12 It had a great and high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels; and names were written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel. 13 There were three gates on the east and three gates on the north and three gates on the south and three gates on the west. 14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."

Note the bolded parts--ALL 12 apostles were part of the foundation of the Church. Peter is nowhere singled out as the head apostle or head foundation stone--only Jesus Christ is the chief stone, the cornerstone.

So, the RCC has been living and teaching a lie for many centuries, that Peter is the Rock the church is supposedly built upon, when it is JESUS CHRIST and the Rock of Peter's confession--that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Would you rather have your house built upon THIS?

or on one of these?

Jesus is the first picture, and Peter--the chunk of rock--is the second picture, figuratively speaking.

 

[LifeIn]

Since it's all political foolishness, and non-biblical error, what's there to address?

There IS ONE true catholic (universal) church that Jesus commissioned, and it's rolling along perfectly..

Has it always been such, or only just now? My question goes to the absence of any historical record of such a church in 2nd and 3rd century Rome and Greece. There is an historical record of my church in that place and at that time, but why do we read so very little about your church at that time?

Your ERROR (hopefully not fatal) is that you've been propagandized to believe that the Catholic Church (Roman and otherwise) IS that catholic church built on Jesus perfect SIN OFFERING in the cross. It's not, and the Roman operation never was.

Before you start listing the errors of the Catholic Church, I think you need to offer some evidence that your Church existed from the year 100 to the year 300.

 

[RiJoRi]

.Would you rather have your house built upon THIS?

or one of these?

Jesus is the first picture, and Peter--the chunk of rock--is the second picture, figuratively speaking.

Amen, Bonnie! I just did a quick look at "Rock" in the Bible, and there are many, many references in the OT – from Deuteronomy to Habakkuk – to God being our Rock. References with which Jesus' disciples would have been very familiar.

One reason a group would prefer a stone to the Rock of Ages is that the stone can be moved about as that group desires.

--Rich

 

[balshan]

Amen, Bonnie! I just did a quick look at "Rock" in the Bible, and there are many, many references in the OT – from Deuteronomy to Habakkuk – to God being our Rock. References with which Jesus' disciples would have been very familiar.

One reason a group would prefer a stone to the Rock of Ages is that the stone can be moved about as that group desires.

--Rich

Yes it is clear who is the rock from the OT and the NT.

 

[LifeIn]

Jesus said "upon THIS
Rock" after Peter's great confession, that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God." THAT is the "Petra" Jesus would build His church on, not on the little Petros, Peter. He did NOT say "upon YOU Petros". Did He?

Neither did Jesus say "upon ME I will build my church". Did He? Please address the problem with your interpretation which is not in keeping with the context of Matthew verses 17-19. If your interpretation is what Jesus intended then He would have said something to show that version 18 is an exception to the context, such as "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, however on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." You have not explained why Jesus said " and on this rock I will build my church." The word "however" would be much more appropriate than the word "and" because and signifies things that are connected by similarity. The word however or but signifies a contrast. Certainly your interpretation of version 18 is one of contrast, contrasting "Petros" for Simon son of Jonah with "Petra" for Jesus. Why doesn't version 18 have either word? Why does verse 18 use the word "and" which does not indicate a contrast? My answer is that no contrast was intended because Jesus meant to refer to Simon son of Jonah in verse 18. My interpretation (the Catholic interpretation) is also more in keeping with the context of verse 17 and verse 19. Please address these issues.

 

[Bonnie]

Neither did Jesus say "upon ME I will build my church". Did He? Please address the problem with your interpretation which is not in keeping with the context of Matthew verses 17-19. If your interpretation is what Jesus intended then He would have said something to show that version 18 is an exception to the context, such as "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, however on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." You have not explained why Jesus said " and on this rock I will build my church." The word "however" would be much more appropriate than the word "and" because and signifies things that are connected by similarity. The word however or but signifies a contrast. Certainly your interpretation of version 18 is one of contrast, contrasting "Petros" for Simon son of Jonah with "Petra" for Jesus. Why doesn't version 18 have either word? Why does verse 18 use the word "and" which does not indicate a contrast? My answer is that no contrast was intended because Jesus meant to refer to Simon son of Jonah in verse 18. My interpretation (the Catholic interpretation) is also more in keeping with the context of verse 17 and verse 19. Please address these issues.

Yes, I did explain everything in my very detailed post. Jesus did not build His church on a chunk of human "rock", but on THE Rock--petra-- of our salvation--Jesus Christ, and that He is the Christ, the Son of the living God. I proved Who is the foundation of the church--and it wasn't Peter, using Scripture itself.

"However" is not in the text, as far as I know. So, why are you changing God's holy word, to make it fit your Catholic a priori?