You pick out one verse. The verse gives a time-line. That is where Peter was at that time in history. Now read the rest of the post and find out where, according to a Scriptural time-line Peter spent his lifetime. Then, according to Scripture, tell me how it is possible for him to have spent 25 years in Rome. I am only citing the facts given in Scripture of where people were at certain times in history.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Sola scriptura or prima scriptura
- Thread starter Anastasia
- Start date
- Status
Dr. Walter
New Member
If the church is built upon Peter than it would be "the church of Peter" but if it is built upon Christ (1 Cor. 3:11) then it would be "the church of Christ." Paul says there is no other foundation laid than Jesus Christ and the context is building churches.
1. When Jesus addresses Peter it is with the second person singular "thou" but when he speaks of the "rock" foundation it is THIRD person singular.
2. When Jesus addresses Peter it is nominative masculine but when he addresses the "rock" it is femine.
3. When Jesus addresses Peter it is "petros" but when he addressed the "rock" it is "petra".
4. The nearest grammatical antecedent for "this rock" is not "petros" but "this" in verse 17 which has for its antecedent the confession of Christ by Peter in verse 16.
5. When Jesus describes the use of the keys in Matthew 18:18 it is not second person singular but the second person plural which has for its nearest antecended "church" in verse 17.
6. When Peter wants to describe the materials used to build the church he calls them "lively stones" (1 Pet. 2:5) and when he defines who the "petra" is in regard to this church he says it is "Christ" not himself (1 Pet. 2:8).
7. When Peter describes his office in relationship to others who hold ecclesiastical positions in the churches he denies he has any superior POSITION in the church over other elders - 1 Pet. 5:1.
8. When Peter describes his own oral tradition that he was an eye witness, he claims the scriptures are "MORE SURE" than apostolic tradition - 2 Pet. 2:16-19.
9. When Paul describes what is necessary for "the man of God" to be throughly furnished unto all good works in regard to doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction there is no inclusion of the church, of apostolic oral traditions but only "all scripture is given by inspiration" for those ends.
10. Scriptures claim to be final authority over and above all other supernatural sources including words derived from dead men - Isa . 8:20
11. The Bereans were commended for subjecting apostloic teaching to the authority of the scriptures (Acts 17).
12. The churches in the New Testament bear no resemblance to the Church at Rome but Rome was the first great apostasy that originated no earlier than the fourth century characterized by union between secular government and a church - an unholy fornication that cannot be found in the New Testament.
What makes the church of Christ the "pillar and ground of the truth" is their recognition of the scriptures as final authority for doctrine, correction, reproof and instruction as this is the only thing "the man of God" needs to be THROUGHLY FURNISHED UNTO ALL GOOD WORKS.
No problem with 1-5; no problem with 8. But 6 and 7 are unlikely. Jesus gave the keys uniquely to Peter and no one else. Yet all the apostles were given the gift of preaching the gospel. Peter was given something that the others were not. This seems to be borne out also in John 21 where Jesus told Peter three times to feed my sheep. No other disciple received this charge. So why do you say the keys represent preaching the gospel?
Dr. Walter
New Member
Jesus gave the keys to Peter as a REPRESENTATIVE characterization of the average member of the congregation. Proof? Matthew 18:18 demonstrates that there is a plural "you" that administers the keys. The plural pronoun "you" in verse 18 has its nearest antecedent in the word "church" in verse 17. New Testament writers commonly use the second person plural pronoun "you" in reference to the particular church being addressed in epistles.
Furthermore, Matthew 18:15-18 contextually exercises the keys in regard to church discipline. In 1 Corinthians 5 Paul does not address Peter or the eldership in the congregation at Corinth but rather the church as a body to exercise discipline upon the erring member. 2 Cor. 2:6 demonstrates this discipline was administered by the majority "of many."
The keys of the kingdom are administered by the whole church inclusive of its leadership.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
"Bad date call: That the murder of James and the dispersion was around 47 A.D. Actually it was around 40-42. Herod Agrippa died in 44.
Bad assumption #1: That Peter continued to live in Jerusalem after the dispersion. In all probability he was living in Rome at the time of the Jerusalem Council and came back to Jerusalem to attend it. Had Peter been living in Jerusalem at the time, he would likely have presided over the Council rather than James.
Bad assumption #2: That Peter was living in Antioch during the confrontation with Paul. Galatians 2:11 says "But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face." Sounds like he was just passing through, not living there.
Bad assumption #3: That Peter wrote from Babylon on the Euphrates. This is something only the most benighted would believe, such as those with an agenda to prove that Peter did not live in Rome. Babylon is universally held to be Rome in the Petrine epistle.
So, if Peter left Jerusalem at the time of the dispersion of the Christians (circa 40-42) and moved to Rome where he died (circa 66-67), he would have been there 24-27 years."
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
The fact is I didn't change the subject matter. What I did is call you out on your selection indicating that it isn't the whole picture. You take one section of a particular ECF and find a verse to suit your needs rather than take the whole work to accertain actual position of a church father.
Actually we are talking about linguistics. It is clear from John that Jesus spoke regularily to his Apostles in Aramaic. Thus each Apostle when recounting the story for a Greek audience must translate a statement made in Aramaic into Greek. Which would give you a different perspective of what is meant by "rock" in Matthew 16:18. You suppose Matthew is making a play on words or even that Jesus is when the case is that he is translating it into Greek from what he remembered of the Aramaic conversation. Aramaic doesn't have this gender aspect when speaking of Rock thus Rock isn't masculine nor feminine. Yet in Greek Matthew is constrained by the limitations of Greek to no longer make a gender neutral statement and assigns gender quality to it. Thus Simon is named Cephas not Petros or Peter. That is a translation from the originial which is Aramaic or Cephas. Thus your interpetation of Matthew ignores the truth of the quote from Jesus. Jesus is speaking Aramaic with Aramaic inferences. The Author translates that into Greek and thus must attend to the limitation of the Greek. However, this nuance doesn't bother the writer because the Church is already established on the solid oral teachings of the apostles and takes for granted that the greek speaking audience knows what he means. It is only know 2,000 years later that its brought up in question. And I used specific evidence from scripture to prove this point. It is you who keeps changing the subject making absurd pronouncements that Jesus spoke only in Greek to his Apostles or that since scriptures are writen in Greek that the cultural norm of Aramaic usage can not be taken into account. You almost hinge on saying Greek is a plenary language.
Er...no: Jesus is addressing the Apostles here, not 'all church members', since there was at that time no church and therefore there could be no membership at that point. What is happening here is that the power of the keys that is firstly (primarily) given to Peter is now extended to include the Twelve.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
This is where I say you almost verge on claiming Greek to be a plenary language. Certainly there is no evidence that some of the NT may have been writen in Aramaic. However, there are certain scholars that hold the view that Matthew May have originally been written in Aramaic due to his intended audience. Though this is not substantiated by hard evidence there is some logic to it
The point is not that John equals Matthew the point is that it is clear evidence that Jesus spoke to his disciples in Aramaic in that He names Simon; Cephas. And there is only one story in the NT I can think that the naming of Peter occurs. Thus is he named Peter Cephas and not Petros the play on words is not a function of what the writer is getting accross.
Not at all! It is clear. And my view is not that Aramaic is superior to Greek but that it was the language used in discussion. In which case the NT writen in Greek for many things are themselves and interpretation of the conversations remembered by the Apostles. It is you placing the language in a plenary state. For me the Church gives the bible as a source of Tradition. Not the other way round. Ie before the first pen touched paper (so to speak). The church was already established by the witness of the Apostles who established how things were to be understood in the OT and later compiled their memoirs in Gospels so as to have a writen documentation of their witness but the tradition was already established. And the scriptures are one aspect of it.
WestminsterMan
New Member
WestminsterMan
New Member
WestminsterMan
New Member
OK...
OK...
Apparently you do not grasp the significance of changing ones name in the Jewish culture. Research it and get back to me.
That fact that Christ singled out Peter upon whom He would build his Earthly Church in no way diminishes Christ's position as the corner stone. Christ is called many things in scripture such as the Way, the Truth, the Life, the Door, the only Mediator, the Lamb of God, and Lion of Judah to name only a few - so that point is irrelelvant.
Further, what was laid upon the corner stone in Jesus' day when laying a foundation? Rocks, and Peter was the first of many up until today!
OK...
Apparently, you fail to grasp the cultural significance of a ruler giving the keys of his kingdom to someone. Research it and get back to me.
Oh ... I see, so because of that offense Peter is somehow lessened in God's eyes and thus no longer deserves to be in a position of authority? That's a stretch. :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
WM
WestminsterMan
New Member
WestminsterMan
New Member
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Welcome to the Baptist Board, lakeside!
You give sample verses which you say support the idea of apostolic succession, but do they?
Acts 1.20 refers to a specific one-off situation – the selection of a replacement apostle for the betrayer, Judas Iscariot.
Acts 6.6 is about the appointment of deacons - men to oversee the “admin” side of church life – not successors to apostles.
Acts 13.3 is about the setting aside of Saul and Barnabas for what we would call “missionary work”.
Acts 8.18 is part of a passage about the Holy Spirit being given to believers in Samaria.
Acts 9.17 is about Saul receiving his sight back, and receiving the Holy Spirit.
1 Timothy 4.14 refers to Timothy having been granted a gift. This gift had been prophesied, as both this verse and 1 Timothy 1.18, indicate. It was accompanied by the elders laying their hands on him. But nothing there about apostolic authority being passed on.
1 Timothy 5.22 also makes no mention of apostolic authority, nor does 2 Timothy 1.6.
But what about the context of those two passages? In full, Ezekiel 34.23 says:
"I will establish one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them––My servant David. He shall feed them and be their shepherd.”
It is part of a passage where God is condemning Israel’s false shepherds. A few verses earlier, in Ezekiel 34.10-12, we read:
10 ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require My flock at their hand; I will cause them to cease feeding the sheep, and the shepherds shall feed themselves no more; for I will deliver My flock from their mouths, that they may no longer be food for them." 11 ‘For thus says the Lord GOD: "Indeed I Myself will search for My sheep and seek them out. 12 "As a shepherd seeks out his flock on the day he is among his scattered sheep, so will I seek out My sheep and deliver them from all the places where they were scattered on a cloudy and dark day.”
So God Himself is the Shepherd, which ties in with John 10 11, where Jesus says:
“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep.”
As for John 21.15-17, what is its context? Surely the risen Jesus Christ is reassuring Peter that his earlier denials have not disqualified him from his Master’s service.
If Peter were the “chief steward over His earthly kingdom”, it seems that little nugget was unknown to Saul/Paul, for in Galatians 2.11-14 he wrote:
“11 ¶ Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?”
"Withstood him to the face," "played the hypocrite with him," "not straightforward about the truth of the gospel...." Are those really the sort of words we would expect to be spoken concerning “the chief steward over God's earthly kingdom”?
Jesus did not charge Peter to be the source of strength though. If He had done so, then Luke would have been severely wrong. He wrote of Paul in Acts 18.23 (emphasis mine):
22 And when he had landed at Caesarea, and gone up and greeted the church, he went down to Antioch. 23 After he had spent some time there, he departed and went over the region of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples.”
And Peter was not the shepherd (earthly or otherwise) of the flock of Jesus, for in Acts 20.28, Paul, addressing the elders of the church at Ephesus, said:
“Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church ofGod which He purchased with His own blood.”
First, we need to be clear what a bishop is. The bible knows nothing of diocesan bishops. In Scripture, bishops were overseers in each local church. Think of the men Paul was addressing in Acts 20.28, quoted above. In that verse Paul calls them “overseers”, and earlier in Acts 20.17 he refers to this same group of men as “elders of the church at Ephesus.”
You give sample verses which you say support the idea of apostolic succession, but do they?
Acts 1.20 refers to a specific one-off situation – the selection of a replacement apostle for the betrayer, Judas Iscariot.
Acts 6.6 is about the appointment of deacons - men to oversee the “admin” side of church life – not successors to apostles.
Acts 13.3 is about the setting aside of Saul and Barnabas for what we would call “missionary work”.
Acts 8.18 is part of a passage about the Holy Spirit being given to believers in Samaria.
Acts 9.17 is about Saul receiving his sight back, and receiving the Holy Spirit.
1 Timothy 4.14 refers to Timothy having been granted a gift. This gift had been prophesied, as both this verse and 1 Timothy 1.18, indicate. It was accompanied by the elders laying their hands on him. But nothing there about apostolic authority being passed on.
1 Timothy 5.22 also makes no mention of apostolic authority, nor does 2 Timothy 1.6.
By “Catholic”, do you mean “Roman Catholic”? If so, I wonder how you think Matthew 28.20 or Luke 10.16 shows the Roman Catholic church to be the “One True Church today”.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Not sure why my final "lakeside quote" was split. I kept trying to edit the split out, but it's still there.
Dr. Walter
New Member
The nearest grammatical antecedent for "you" in verse 18 is "church" in verse 17. The term "again" in verse 19 shows continuation and the same subject is again the church regardless how small the church is "two or three" and "two or three" cannot refer to the apostles any more than "you" refers to the apostles in verse 18 or "two or three" refers to the apostes in verse 16. Christ clearly designates the "church" as the final court of appeals not the apostles.
You give your opinion based on nothing and I give you my opinion based upon contextual data and grammar.
And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles. (Acts 8:1)
Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word. (Acts 8:4)
The church was scattered abroad. That is the common members. The Apostles, including Peter, continued to make Jerusalem his home. He never moved.
Bad calculations on your part. Look again:
Peter didn’t live in Rome, and there is no evidence pointing in that direction.
He lived in Jerusalem for a good part of his life. He was there just before and after Paul’s conversion.
And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles. (Acts 8:1)
Except for the Apostles, including Peter, the rest of the church in Jerusalem was scattered because of persecution. The Apostles remained in Jerusalem.
When the persecution stopped Peter began to travel, more or less as an itinerant preacher.
Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.
32 And it came to pass, as Peter passed throughout all quarters, he came down also to the saints which dwelt at Lydda. (Acts 9:31-32)
--Lydda is a town between Jerusalem and Caesarea, about 15 miles east of Joppa.
And forasmuch as Lydda was nigh to Joppa, and the disciples had heard that Peter was there, they sent unto him two men, desiring him that he would not delay to come to them. (Acts 9:38)
--15 miles down the road he went to Joppa, and healed Dorcas also called Tabitha.
And it came to pass, that he tarried many days in Joppa with one Simon a tanner. (Acts 9:43)
--It doesn’t say exactly how long he was in Joppa, but he resided there for a while.
There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, (Acts 10:1)
And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter: (Acts 10:5)
Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come? (Acts 10:21)
--Now Peter is in Caesarea with Cornelius and his household. He came straight from Joppa.
And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, (Acts 11:2)
--Immediately after the conversion of Cornelius and others in that area, he went straight to Jerusalem to report of these events there.
And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) (Acts 12:2-3)
--Peter is still at Jerusalem. It is probable that the date is ca. 42-44, the king being King Agrippa I.
And when Herod had sought for him, and found him not, he examined the keepers, and commanded that they should be put to death. And he went down from Judaea to Caesarea, and there abode. (Acts 12:19)
--Now Peter is on the move again—From Judea to Caesarea. But now it says, that here he made his abode—his home. He stayed here for awhile.
And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. (Acts 15:1)
And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. (Acts 15:4)
And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. (Acts 15:6-7)
--This was an important matter, so Peter came down from Caesarea to Jerusalem to have his say.
And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: (Acts 15:13)
Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: (Acts 15:19)
--Note: James was not one of the 12. He was the half brother of Jesus who was saved after the resurrection, and was well respected in the community. He was also the same James that wrote the epistle of James. This James is now the pastor of the church at Jerusalem. This is why the responsibility lies on him to make the decision. James hears the report of the Judaizers (legalists), and then of Paul and Barnabas, and then of Peter and others. He takes everything into consideration, and he makes the judgment (sentence). He is the pastor of the church.
Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: (Acts 15:22)
--Note, that after James gave his decision that it pleased the apostles, as well as the rest of the church. James gave a good decision that was pleasing to all involved.
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. (Galatians 2:11)
--This is the next chronological mention of Peter. It is shortly after the Jerusalem Council. He went from Jerusalem to Antioch, and engaged in the very things that they just voted against. He was hypocritical at this point and needed to be rebuked. This could be as late as 52 A.D. There is no indication he had ever been to Rome.
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, (1 Peter 1:1)
--Look who he is writing to. The geographic center of these places is Babylon from where he claims to have written this epistle. We have no reason to doubt him. The Jews had been dispersed, and that is who he is writing to: Christians with a Jewish background.
The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son. (1 Peter 5:13)
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:15-16)
--Even though he had been sharply rebuked by Paul, he recognizes Paul’s writings as actual Scripture.
Between Antioch (52 A.D. and the writing of this epistle, a year or so before his death, ca. 66 A.D) you cannot fit 25 years. In fact you can’t even prove that one year was spent in Rome.
Read Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown’s commentary for more useful information on 1Pet. 1:1.
Last edited by a moderator:
The clear contextual data here is that He is addressing the Apostles. No-one else is present here and therefore no-one else is meant by 'you'.
Dr. Walter
New Member
We were actually talking about the term "rock" and its grammatical and syntactical relationship in the context of Matthew 16:18.
1. You widened this discussion to talk about Aramaic implications in general but could not provide any basis to prove that Aramaic had any impact upon the Greek language and grammar and immediate context of Matt. 16:18.
2. You then widened the discussion by adding ECF quotations to confirm your interpretation of "rock" in Matthew 16:18 but I provided a study presented by a high ranking Roman Catholic to prove that the majority of ECF took my position rather than your position in regard to "rock" in Matthew 16:18.
3. You then widened the dicussion by adding the Roman Catholic Church position on the preminence of the church and preeminence of Peter which had NOTHING TO DO with the majority opinion of ECF's on the interpretation of "rock" in Matthew 16:18.
Indeed, your present argument is a straw man of your own making. Indeed it is circular reasoning. You are the one that inserted Roman Catholic Doctrine into this discussion to prop up your failed argument that more ECF's supported your interpetation of "rock" in Matthew 16:18 (16 in total) when in fact 41 supported my intepretation of rock.
YOU ARE STILL IN ESCAPE mode and the distract mode because it is you that has consistenly changed the subject from the term "rock" to Aramaic to EFC's to Catholic doctrine on the church and Peter which have absolutely nothing to do with Matthew's contextual grammatical use and implications in Matthew 16:18.
The Holy Spirit chose Greek not Aramaic. If the HOly Spirit had the Roman Catholic interpretation in view He could have avoided all the contrasting grammatical issues (gender, terms, antecedents, number) and simply said, "Thou art Peter and upon you I will build my church." No problem for the Greek to say this clearly and explicilty but He did not say this. Matthew 18:18 does not use Greek grammar to limit it to Peter either.
The theory that the "rock" is Peter is without any valid evidence.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status