Peter First Pope. Why??

Dear Tam,

Did you want our RC brethern to answer your question or did you want to argue with them? I stated that I disagreed, they understood (for the most part) and continued to explain their position on the matter. That is what you ask them to do in your very first post - the one which started the thread. Rather than say "you're wrong""you're wrong""you're wrong""you're wrong""you're wrong""you're wrong""you're wrong" ect ad nauseum, why don't you ask them about how they exegete some particular scripture as it relates to this passage? It would receive fewer flippant answers.

To the RC folks who have posted, thanks, but I still do not agree with your interpretation. We may well have run the course on this thread since the probability for tangental discussions and outright blasts has escalated (and yes, I share the blame for that). Perhaps we can try this again sometime - and I'll play Gen. Longstreet and dig my trenches.

Shalom,
Dan S

[ November 13, 2003, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: Dan Stiles ]

 

The key referred to in Isa 22, is singular, not plural, "the key of the house of David " and not "the keys of the kingdom of heaven." The key of the house of David symbolises Christ' reign, and is in His possession.

He holds the key of David - (Revelation 3:7) - not Peter. In Isaiah 22, king Hezekiah under the leadership of God strips his royal treasurer Shebna of his responsibilities & appoints Eliakim instead. The sight of Eliakim with the keys to the royal treasury draped over his shoulder became a familiar one in Hezekiah’s court.

Eliakim is a type of Christ. Just as if you wanted an audience with king Hezekiah you had to go through Eliakim. If you want to enter into heaven, if you want to have an audience with the King, you must go through Christ, for over His shoulder is draped the key of David.
That key is his both by legal right and by lineage, it pictures His Sovereignty, it shows that all power is given unto Him, that God has exalted Him and raised Him up giving Him all authority both in Heaven and in earth, Matthew 28:18, Philippians 2:9-11.

 

Please Tam,

I know this your thread, but lets stick to the issue instead of repeating mantras. I once was witnessing to a Mormon and when backed into a corner he kept repeating, "I know that Joseph Smith is a prophet and that the Book of Mormon is God's Word." That didn't make it true.

You have good exegitical arguments, lets stick to them.

 

Peter does mean rock. That is his name, Peter (Rock). Peter is just a transliteration of the Greek word meaning rock in English. So, if you were Greek, you would understand Jesus say, "Thou are Rock, and upon this rock......." Every time you see "Peter" you see "Rock."

In Christ,
Neal

 

Hi, Tam:

Could you provide scriptural support that God Himself changed Saul's name to Paul, and that it wasn't a Gentile variation of the Jewish name Saul?

Who are the so ons that you refer to? You believe God changed a lot of people names, but actually it was very few.


God Bless

 

It is important to note that Jesus did not state that he was creating a perpetual office, only transferring certain authority and (I believe) powers to Peter as an individual. There is no mention of successors. In the Old Testament, God was usually explicit when creating an office, and God I think had a hand in explicitly choosing the initial successors. Here, we are left to infer the existence of the office. And we have no indication of God's visible involvement in selecting Peter's purported successors. Remember that the papacy rests on more than merely Peter's being "the rock" on which the church was to be built. If it is to be legitimately the one true church, there must be some clear creation of an office of "Vicar of Christ" on earth and of a succession to this office. (I could argue that it is just as clear that God heard the grumbling of the people against the popes and created a multitude of offices in alternate but equally authoritative Christian denominations.)

Might Jesus have named Simon "Peter" or "solitary rock" because of Peter's faith and the role Peter would play in the early church? Even if Peter was not to be the "bedrock" on which the church which is the bride of Christ was to be built? Certainly.

Where the key was a symbol of an office (in Isaiah), the key was physical and visible for all to see. Not as invisible as "The Emperor's New Clothes."

I have begun to wonder what the Catholic denomination things happens to the "keys" they supposedly have when a pope dies. Who gets them? How are they transferred. I cannot be the first person to have wondered this, so I know there will be some sort of explanation.

Carson Webster, I believe, in another thread likened it to getting the keys to one's house from a previous owner. But that previous owner is dead and so seemingly unable to transfer the keys. Popes do not choose their successors prior to death....

Blessings,
CalvinG

 

Hi Calvin,

It is important to note that Jesus did not state that he was creating a perpetual office, only transferring certain authority and (I believe) powers to Peter as an individual.

What is amazing about the Gospels isn't what they state explicitly but how much they assume implicitly. With the OT background to Matthew 16:16-19, a Jew would see Jesus instituting a perpetual office that entails succession just as Solomon in 1 Kings 2:19 instituted the office of the Queen Mother (the Gebirah), even though Solomon was elevating only one person in this particular passage to the throne at his right hand. The office of the Gebirah thereafter was an integral part of the Davidic Kingdom's structure and functioning, and the mother of every Davidic king is recorded in Scripture except for two.

Might Jesus have named Simon "Peter" or "solitary rock" because of Peter's faith and the role Peter would play in the early church?

I encourage you to read the history of the Early Church and what the Early Church Fathers had to say about Peter. The succession of bishops from Peter was well-known and universally accepted throughout the entire Church.

I have begun to wonder what the Catholic denomination things happens to the "keys" they supposedly have when a pope dies. Who gets them? How are they transferred.

This is a figure of speech that harkens back to the symbolic key, which the viziers of ancient kingdoms would carry on their shoulder. There is not a physical "key" that exists; Jesus didn't hand Peter a real key. It's a symbol for "the office of prime minister", and every office in the Church is filled just as Matthais filled the office of Judas in Acts 1:42. The other bishops choose a successor.

Popes do not choose their successors prior to death.

And Judas Iscariot didn't choose his successor prior to his death either. This is not a requirement for an office of succession.

 

Paul's name was not changed. His Roman name was Paulus and his Hebrew name was Saul. It's a matter of usage and preference, not change by God.

The others (Abram - Abraham, Jacob - Israel) represent a change. Simon was changed to Peter, which in English is "Rock." Do the math.

 

1 Cor 3 tells us that there is only "ONE Foundation" for the Church and that is Christ - and no OTHER foundation can be laid.

1 Cor 10 tells us that Christ was "THE ROCK" even in the OT for the saints of the OT.

The ONE foundation in all ages - never changed.

In Christ,

Bob

 

So we should not think of Prophets and Apostles as the foundatoin of the Church. Eph 2:20 is a lie?

Who is the light of the world Bob? Any gueses? Are there any other holy ones besides Jesus in scripture Bob? Are we co-laborers with Christ?


Blessings

 

So we should not think of Prophets and Apostles as the foundatoin of the Church. Eph 2:20 is a lie?

Who is the light of the world Bob? Any gueses? Are there any other holy ones besides Jesus in scripture Bob? Are we co-laborers with Christ?


Blessings </font>[/QUOTE]Thessalonian, I challenge you to have church that does not have as it foundation the truth of who and what Jesus is. Without that foundation, there are no apostles or Prophets! And there is no reason for a church to exist!

The Apostles and Prophets are the Pillars of the Church and they all stand on the Foundation of the Church, who is Jesus, the Christ, who is also the Light of the world! The Word of God is also called the light of the world.

 

"Thessalonian, I challenge you to have church that does not have as it foundation the truth of who and what Jesus is. Without that foundation, there are no apostles or Prophets! And there is no reason for a church to exist!"

Where did I say otherwise. I did not. only a Protestand who sees contradiction in everything would think I did. Jesus Christ is the foundation of the Church. AMEN!

"The Apostles and Prophets are the Pillars of the Church and they all stand on the Foundation of the Church, who is Jesus, the Christ, who is also the Light of the world! The Word of God is also called the light of the world. "

Hmmm. Let's look at Eph 2:20.
Ephesians 2:20
having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone.

Says it pretty clear ON THE FOUNDATION OF THE APOSTLES AND PROPHETS. Doesn't say they are on top of Jesus but that he is the corner stone. But in the Cathlic view prophets and Apostles are the foundation and Jesus Christ is one in the same foundatoin because the Apostles and Prophets foundation is the one built through Christ. It is one in the same thing to say Christ is the foundation and Prophets and apostles are the foundatoin and I don't have to change or add any words to make the verses fit my theology. Christ works through this foundatoin. The foundation of Prophets and Apostles is not from Christ.

Who is the light of the world? Christ is the light of the world AMEN!




John 8:12
Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, "I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life."

John 9:5
"While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world."


So are Christians.

Matthew 5:14
"You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden;

Once again no contradiction. Christians are because we are to bring Christ to the world. He works through us. I know of course that you will try to argue with me because you can never agree with a Catholic.

Blessings

 

You obviously haven't read all my posts. Many times I have agreed with Catholics. Many times I have disagreed with those who disparage Catholics, not because of who they are or their persuasion, but because of what they post...just as I do with Catholics, and you. I don't really care what an individual's religious organizational preference is, I do care about what is posted.