Peter the Pope question

[Mike McKinney]

I don't post here very often, so I don't know everybody here, but it's come to my attention that we have a lot of Catholic people here. So, I have a very simple question for the Catholics here:

How can Peter be the first pope, when Galatians 2:8 says Peter was the apostle to the Jews?

 

[Cathode]

I don't post here very often, so I don't know everybody here, but it's come to my attention that we have a lot of Catholic people here. So, I have a very simple question for the Catholics here:

How can Peter be the first pope, when Galatians 2:8 says Peter was the apostle to the Jews?

Peter was the Apostle to the Jews and Gentiles, Paul was Apostle to concentrate on the Gentiles whilst Peter was still working on the Jews.
It was more of a division of labour not some strict title.

Peter was first to go to the Gentiles.

No one went to the Gentiles until after Peter first brought the Gentiles into the Church at Cornelius’ house, sent by God.

 

[JesusFan]

Peter was the Apostle to the Jews and Gentiles, Paul was Apostle to concentrate on the Gentiles whilst Peter was still working on the Jews.
It was more of a division of labour not some strict title.

Peter was first to go to the Gentiles.

No one went to the Gentiles until after Peter first brought the Gentiles into the Church at Cornelius’ house, sent by God.

bible NEVER acknowledges any papacy in Book of Acts

 

[Mike McKinney]

Peter was the Apostle to the Jews and Gentiles
Paul was Apostle to concentrate on the Gentiles whilst Peter was still working on the Jews.

No, that's not what the text says.

It says, "On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8(for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles"

It was more of a division of labour not some strict title.

Do you have a verse for this?

Peter was first to go to the Gentiles.

Galatians 2:8 says that Peter was the apostle to the Jews, not to the gentiles.

 

[JesusFan]

No, that's not what the text says.

It says, "On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8(for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles"

Do you have a verse for this?

Galatians 2:8 says that Peter was the apostle to the Jews, not to the gentiles.

Per the bible itself, Peter Apostle to the Jews, Paul to the Gentiles, James of thre Mother Church in Jerusalem, so why doesnt Rome have 3 Popes in Acts?

 

[Cathode]

No, that's not what the text says.

It says, "On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8(for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles"

Do you have a verse for this?

Galatians 2:8 says that Peter was the apostle to the Jews, not to the gentiles.

Why was Peter sent to the Gentiles by God?

This is where we can see that Peter was guided by God to lead the Church and brought the Gentiles into the Church.

They recognised that Peter had a charism for the Jews and Paul had charism for the Gentiles.

“James, Cephas[c] and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.”

This did not mean that this was exclusive, because Paul rightly pointed out that Peter was treating Jew and Gentile differently.

If Peter was exclusively for the Jews, Paul would not have rebuked Peter to his face for separating company from the Gentiles and only eating with the Jews.

So Peter was with Jew and Gentile believers alike in his community.

“When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.”

14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”

 

[Mike McKinney]

Why was Peter sent to the Gentiles by God?

By being apostle to the Jews?

This is where we can see that Peter was guided by God to lead the Church and brought the Gentiles into the Church.

Verse?0

This did not mean that this was exclusive, because Paul rightly pointed out that Peter was treating Jew and Gentile differently.

Then why does the text, both grammatically and implicitly, say it was exclusive?

Why would Paul differentiate between the two if it was not exclusive?

 

[Cathode]

By being apostle to the Jews?

Verse?0

Verse? How about about a whole Chapter. Acts 10. Peter first brings the Gentiles into the Church guided by God. Paul didn’t do that.
God guided Peter as a leader to bring the Gentiles into the Church. No one went to the Gentiles before Peter did.

Then why does the text, both grammatically and implicitly, say it was exclusive?

Why would Paul differentiate between the two if it was not exclusive?

Why was Paul telling Peter not treat Gentiles differently by not eating with them. What was Peter doing around Gentiles if he was to be exclusively for Jews? You aren’t seeing the obvious here.

The Apostles recognised Paul’s charism working with Gentiles and agreed that he should concentrate on proselytising the Gentiles. Not that Paul should only be in community with Gentiles and the others only be in community with the Jews.

“James, Cephas[c] and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.”

 

[JesusFan]

By being apostle to the Jews?

Verse?0

Then why does the text, both grammatically and implicitly, say it was exclusive?

Why would Paul differentiate between the two if it was not exclusive?

IF Peter was the first Pope, why did He defer to both James and Paul in Acts, as if all were co equals?

And where did peter Ever state that he was the chief Apostle, the Pope for the Church?

 

[Walter]

I don't post here very often, so I don't know everybody here, but it's come to my attention that we have a lot of Catholic people here. So, I have a very simple question for the Catholics here:

How can Peter be the first pope, when Galatians 2:8 says Peter was the apostle to the Jews?

Lol, where did you get the idea there's 'a lot' of Catholics here? You can count them on one hand.

I think we have been given opportunity to debate on a Baptist board and I have appreciated that for years now. At one time, the only way for us to participate on this board was to be grandfathered in (my case), however, a few have been accepted as members providing they're respectful and not proselytizing.

 

[JesusFan]

Lol, where did you get the idea there's 'a lot' of Catholics here? You can count them on one hand.

I think we have been given opportunity to debate on a Baptist board and I have appreciated that for years now. At one time, the only way for us to participate on this board was to be grandfathered in (my case), however, a few have been accepted as members providing they're respectful and not proselytizing.

So apart from Catholic Traditions, what Bible passage supports Peter as establishing papacy as First pope then?

 

[Walter]

So apart from Catholic Traditions, what Bible passage supports Peter as establishing papacy as First pope then?

St. Matt 16:18 "And so I say to you, you are Peter (Cephas), and upon this rock (Cephas) I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."9 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

And here is the response I gave years ago and I post again as it addresses the most common non-Catholic objection to the use of this passage as support for Peter having primacy:

Jesus is speaking directly to Peter here, Originally in Aramaic (Cephas = rock)... Then the Greek where we get the different endings of 'Petros', one is masculine and one is feminine... following proper grammar they could not give Peter the feminine and that is why there is a difference in the Greek to English... In Aramaic to English would read "...you are Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my church..."

Peter's name in Aramaic was Cephas as shown in John's Gospel and in Paul's letter to the Cornithians. Aramic is what was spoken and it means Rock.

As I just said, it must be noted that even though the text we use is Greek, the Gospel of Matthew was written originally in Aramaic (the other books were written in Greek).

Second, in Greek in the first century, the words Petros and Petra only had different meanings when used in poetry.

Third, it wouldn't make any sense for Christ to refer to Peter, start a blessing on Peter, and then refer back to Himself, and then go back to Peter. It also wouldn't make sense for Christ to rename Simon Peter in this same blessing when he was talking about Himself using a very similar word. That just doesn't make sense and He would realize that it would confuse people. God doesn't seek to confuse us.

 

[Walter]

And, in anticipation of your post that will claim there is no evidence that St.Matthew was ever penned in Aramaic:

Around 180 Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1)

 

[Cathode]

So apart from Catholic Traditions, what Bible passage supports Peter as establishing papacy as First pope then?

Jesus establishes the office if Peter, and Peter as the binding and loosing Authority. After Peter makes the first Infallibly guided teaching of the Church by God The Father in Heaven.

 

[JesusFan]

St. Matt 16:18 "And so I say to you, you are Peter (Cephas), and upon this rock (Cephas) I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."9 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

And here is the response I gave years ago and I post again as it addresses the most common non-Catholic objection to the use of this passage as support for Peter having primacy:

Jesus is speaking directly to Peter here, Originally in Aramaic (Cephas = rock)... Then the Greek where we get the different endings of 'Petros', one is masculine and one is feminine... following proper grammar they could not give Peter the feminine and that is why there is a difference in the Greek to English... In Aramaic to English would read "...you are Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my church..."

Peter's name in Aramaic was Cephas as shown in John's Gospel and in Paul's letter to the Cornithians. Aramic is what was spoken and it means Rock.

As I just said, it must be noted that even though the text we use is Greek, the Gospel of Matthew was written originally in Aramaic (the other books were written in Greek).

Second, in Greek in the first century, the words Petros and Petra only had different meanings when used in poetry.

Third, it wouldn't make any sense for Christ to refer to Peter, start a blessing on Peter, and then refer back to Himself, and then go back to Peter. It also wouldn't make sense for Christ to rename Simon Peter in this same blessing when he was talking about Himself using a very similar word. That just doesn't make sense and He would realize that it would confuse people. God doesn't seek to confuse us.

Jesus said to peter that peter was a little stone, Jesus is the Mountain Rock, and that the church would be built upon chief cornerstone Jesus Himself, and on the Confession that Jesus is The very Son of God.

All of the Apostles had same keys t the Kingdom

 

[JesusFan]

And, in anticipation of your post that will claim there is no evidence that St.Matthew was ever penned in Aramaic:

Around 180 Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that

not inspired truth claim though

 

[JesusFan]

Jesus establishes the office if Peter, and Peter as the binding and loosing Authority. After Peter makes the first Infallibly guided teaching of the Church by God The Father in Heaven.

All of the Apostles had same authority to bind and lose, as they all were just announcing under the Holy Spirit what was happening in heaven to be done upon the earth

 

[Walter]

not inspired truth claim though

So, the Bible would have to state that the original penning of the gospel of Matthew was in Aramaic? Really? And, what about the other points you are ignoring in my posts.

 

[Walter]

Jesus said to peter that peter was a little stone, Jesus is the Mountain Rock, and that the church would be built upon chief cornerstone Jesus Himself, and on the Confession that Jesus is The very Son of God.

All of the Apostles had same keys t the Kingdom

No, kindly re-read my post regarding the Petros/Petra argument. I addressed this and you chose to ignore it or didn't read it.

 

[JesusFan]

No, kindly re-read my post regarding the Petros/Petra argument. I addressed this and you chose to ignore it or didn't read it.

read it, but no biblical evidence to support papacy of peter from scriptures only