₦airaland Forum

easymancfc:
Corrupt Popes or People taking the office doesn't devalue the office or makes it null, So that fact doesn't mean the papacy never existed or that Peter was never Bishop of Rome...
Judas was an apostle, even though he betrayed Jesus...
the Presidency of Nigeria is still the presidency of Nigeria even if it is being occupied by an Armed Robber, it is still Nigeria's Presidency.. the office is not devalued by the Person

Where did Peter acknowledge that he was a pope? Or are you lying against Peter?

From wikipedia

Benedict was the son of Alberic III, Count of Tusculum, and was a nephew of Pope Benedict VIII and Pope John XIX. He was also a grandnephew of Pope John XII. His father obtained the Papal chair for him by bribing the Romans.

Meanwhile Benedict IX was the 145th in the line of popes.

They were indeed succeeding Peter.

easymancfc:
Your first Premise is wrong because from my earlier post I show what the early Christians believed from 110 AD to 200 AD, from IGNATIUS TO TERTULLIAN, LOOK IT UP...

YOUR SECOND PREMISE IF IT'S INFACT ACCURATE DOESN'T ALSO DO ANYTHING, THE PAPACY IS AN OFFICE AND DOESN'T BELONG TO ONE MAN.... If there indeed was a crisis at the time (which I will look into)
ALL HAVE A CLAIM IF THEY ARE VALIDLY ORDAINED BISHOPS,
AND IT IS THE CHURCH'S RESPONSIBILITY TO SETTLE SUCH DISAGREEMENTS, IF A CHRISTIAN GOVERNOR IS THERE, THEN FINE, IF NOT THE CHURCH AS A WHOLE WOULD SETTLE IT...

I know how good the Roman catholic church is at forging "letters from church fathers". So, I'll pass.

It's funny that since after 1046 AD, Roman catholic popes have been succeeding a pope appointed by a German emperor. LOL.

Another teaching the Roman Catholic Church puts forward is the teaching that there has been an unbroken line of Popes since Peter. But there is a problem with this teaching also. First, no Christians for FOUR CENTURIES after the time of Christ believed that Peter was the leader of the church. This teaching wasn't accepted until around A.D.445 during the reign of Pope Leo I. It was only during this time that the Catholic Church needed to find some Biblical support for Papal supremacy.

The other problem with this teaching of an unbroken line is that in A.D.1045, Pope Benedict IX was ran out of office because of his unworthiness, with Silvester III taking his place. When Benedict IX returned, he sold the Papal throne to Gregory VI, but still refused to give up his own claim to the throne. So at this time, all three men claimed to be the legitimate Pope! Then in 1046, the German Emperor Henry III settled it by deposing all three Popes and appointing a fourth, Clement II.

LOL.

easymancfc:
I don't assume, I know Kepha can be both, but in the context of Mathew 16 up verse 19... it does not follow that Jesus would be bringing Peter down, after praising his response to his question and Giving him the keys to the Kingdom... that logic is inconsistent, not to talk about etymology of the words..

How is referring to Peter as a stone bringing him down?

How about Jesus calls Peter Satan only a few verses after the verse you claim establishes Peter as the foundation of the church?

easymancfc:
I do, and they say same thing... Kepha is translated as Rock first of all before Stone, and there's no distinction in the size of the stone with Kepha, So your small stone theory doesn't follow.....

The fact that kepha is translated "stone" punctures your argument about Matt. 16:18. We all know what a stone is.

easymancfc:
that argument has already been discussed...
you are just going back and forth... Rock is a thing and it has a Feminine name in Greek called Petra, but while using it for a man' s name (Simon bar Jonah ), it had to be made masculine which is Petros, Jesus would not want to call Paul, Paulina or Philip, Philipa if their root word was Feminine, he or any new testament writer would have used the masculine form...

in the Aramaic both Petros and Petra are both replaced with Kepha, in the Greek itself there is another word for small stone which Mathew could have used for clarity and to enforce that Peter was just a small stone... It's LITHOS

You assume Kepha is translated only "immovable rock." This is not true. Kepha means both immovable rock and stone(boulder perhaps).

easymancfc,

Please browse other sites apart from your catholic forums. Kephas is translated stones.

easymancfc:
You said Petros means small stones, What Is a pebble?

like I have said earlier, kepha is translated to mean rock not stone... and Mathew would have emphasized that he he meant Peter was a small stone...
A rock is indeed a stone but kepha doesn't have size distinction.

STOP READING ANTICATHOLIC FORUMS AND SITES

Petros means detachable, movable stone, as opposed to petra, which is an immovable rock. Petra is the rock which Jesus referred to when He was talking about the wise man that built on a rock.

hopefulLandlord:
you guys are funny, what meaning does your god give to life that can't be given to it independent of your god?

You can't understand it. You can't feel it.

Until you submit to your Creator.

easymancfc:
again it doesn't demolish anything, John and Mathew give different account of the same name change but they do it differently... feeding of the five thousand for example is narrated differently in different gospel accounts... again you have demolished nothing all you have proven is that Jesus actually changed Simon's name to Peter, which John, Mathew and Even Mark also report although from different perspective...
mark 3:16

and besides, Kepha is mainly used in Aramaic to mean "Rock" not " stone", the word for stone in Aramaic is actually "evna"... So Mathew needed to enforce Peter's littleness he would have used to unambiguous "evna" instead of "Kepha" which is Rock...

evna means pebble found in river beds and beaches.

Kepha means rock or stone! Stop reading catholic forums.

hopefulLandlord:
I've never understood the presumption that the existence of a god imparts meaning to human life. I believe that my parents "created" me, but I do not extend to them any authority to assign me a purpose or dictate my destiny. I think it's true of many people that, if some powerful dictator were to claim control over a person's life and attempt to direct their goals and aspirations, going so far as to say that fulfilling these dictates was the person's only purpose in existence, that person would dedicate their life to the task of destroying that dictator. Why is it so different when the dictator is god, that such control is not only accepted, but believed to be necessary for a fulfilling and meaningful life?

Well, GOD has no "ready-made" plan for anybody. Our fate is a function of the choice we make: whether to serve the Creator, or to disobey Him.

People willingly accept GOD's rule because He is wise, and because they know the meaning He gives to life.

easymancfc,

Jn. 1:42(KJV) says that Jesus meant a "stone" when He changed Peter's name to Cephas.

This demolishes your claim Jesus meant rock(petra) when he referred to Peter in Matt. 16:18.

easymancfc:
Non sequitor... because your friends name is already confidence, so you are not changing it...

before Mathew 16:, he was Simon bar Jonah, after then he became PETER

Hian! Who is talking about changing names here?

The change of name was narrated in the gospel of John, not Matthew.

easymancfc:
two points of note... context is different, Exodus 2:23, happened in Egypt UNDER EGYPTIAN CULTURE, and MOSES MERELY REPORTED...
REMEMBER GOD TOLD THE ISRAELITES TO ABANDON ALL EGYPTIAN PRACTICES AFTER LEAVING EGYPT..
secondly, the scenarios are different firstly from exodus 2:23, no name is mentioned, and thirdly EXODUS WAS NOT WRITTEN IN GREEK BUT ON HEBREW...

in Mathew 16 Jesus changes Peter's name In his native Aramaic, he did not speak Greek, and Mathew translating Peter's new name of Kepha which means rock could note translate directly to Greek because the name would be feminism so he had to make it masculine... hence Petros

You Exodus 2:23 comparison doesn't follow first because no name is mentioned, a name is different from a title and exodus was written in Hebrew while Mathew was written in Greek
SO YOUR ARGUMENT DOES NOT FOLLOW...
IT IS NON SEQUITOR

This could go both ways. The word for both stone and rock in Aramaic is "kepha".

easymancfc:
indeed, Paul was not inferior, neither are the other apostles... Peter is not seen as their boss but rather, "FIRST AMONG MANY" the fact of the verses you stated doesn't take away from Peter's role, because all writers of Scriptures call him first in the list of apostles and his primacy is clear scripturally, and Jesus regards Peter to that effect...
and like I said, one of the titles of the Pope is "SERVANTS OF THE SERVANT OF GOD

You seem to have no knowledge of the Scripture. Gal. 2:9 lists James before Peter.

I'm sincerely surprised that the order of listing is now considered a sign of supremacy.

This is just like saying to my friend whose name is Confidence, and who just confessed her confidence in my ability, "you are Confindence, and on this confidence will I establish a team of benefactors."

What can one make of this? Do the two "confidences" in my statement refer to the same person?

easymancfc:
With all due respect Sir, you haven't demolished anything, like I said "JEWISH CULTURE IS NOT EGYPTIAN SUCCESSION, SO WHAT APPLIES IN ONE DOES NOT WORK FOR THE OTHER...
and like I said, Petra, is not a TITLE IN SIMON'S CASE IT WAS A NAME CHANGE... Jesus called him Simon bar Jonah (Simon son of John) and changed his name to Peter see
mat 16:17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, SIMON Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are PETER, and on this rock I will build my church,

like I said you didn't demolish anything

Bro, nothing concerns Egyptian culture here. Moses who was writing was a Hebrew. So was Matthew. Moses could have used the word "malkat" which is feminine to refer to Hatsheput. So, gender poses no barrier in using titles to refer to people for Hebrew writers.

easymancfc:
because just like they didn't understand many of the things he thought, they had not understood that yet, Luke 22:24 leads to Jesus telling Peter to strengthen his brethren In luke 22:32, and according to Jesus the greatest was the one who would be servant...

This does not mean that Peter was the head of the church. Paul said in 2 Cor. 12:11 and 2 Cor. 11:5 that he was in nothing behind the chiefest of the apostles.

easymancfc:
Exodus 2: 23 just says the king of Egypt died, it doesn't say anything about who succeeded him... besides you are talking about Egyptian succession, not Jewish culture, EGYPTIAN SUCCESSION IS NOT JEWISH CULTURE...
like I said, Petra in 1 cor 10, is not a name of Jesus, it simply means Jesus is the Rock that the Israelites drank from, in the case of Peter, rock was used for his name,...
give me a Jewish man who had a female title or a Jewish man whose name is feminine

It doesn't need to say anything about who succeeded him. I simply demolished your claim that male titles could not apply to females or vice versa.

Now, why did Matt. 16:18 not read "You are Petra..." if indeed Christ was about to designate him as the foundation of the church? Is that not what a title does, to show a person's job or position?

easymancfc:
like I said, it is more like a title I didn't say it was a title... Rock in Greek is Petra so if you are not using it as a name, for a person, it retains its base as Petra

A title is a name too. It simply denotes a person's job or position.

Moreover, your assertion that a title of the opposite gender cannot be used to refer to a person in Hebrew culture is not true. Moses stated in Exod. 2:23 that the king of Egypt died. That king(melek, masculine) was Hatsheput, the princess that adopted him.

So, your claim that Matthew was simply avoiding referring to Peter with a feminine title is not true.

easymancfc:
Not exactly, in mat 16, Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter, So you can't give a man a woman's name according to Jewish culture, Jesus is called the "ROCK" in 1 cor... not as his name but more like a title...
So check your own logic again

The dictionary defines a "title" as a "name" that describes someone's position or job. That alone demolishes your claim that Peter couldn't have been referred to as Petra, since it denoted his position.

Now, going by your logic, what justifies giving a man a feminine title?

Can you call a man a queen?

easymancfc:
In the same way the Book of Ephesians was written by Paul to Christians in Ephesus and it no where mentions the Apostle John, and both Protestants and Catholics agree that John is the Bishop of Ephesus... and it was one of the seven churches he wrote to rev 1:11, 2:1

You sincerely believe that John would be in Ephesus when Paul wrote the letter to them and he would not mention him?

You sincerely believe that Peter would be in Rome when Paul wrote a letter the Romans and Paul would not mention his name to greet him? And you claim Peter was the head of the church even at Rome?

easymancfc:
Luke who wrote the book of acts was a discipline of Paul, so it Is understandable that he would focus on Paul's ministry... the fact that Luke doesn't mention Peter doesn't mean he never went there, like you said, Peter was still alive when the book of acts was closed

The book is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of Paul. It is not intelligent to imply that the book of Acts focuses on Paul. Since the book is named "Acts of the Apostles", it is only wise to believe that all the important acts of the apostles were recorded in it.

Luke the first class historian couldn't have failed to record it if Peter went to Rome.

easymancfc:
on the Petra and Petros issue, you rightly mentioned that Petra is Feminine and Petros Is masculine, so why would Mathew who was writing and Jesus who was speaking call Peter "Petra" which is Feminine Petros is more appropriate because it is masculine and Peter is a man.. the answer would be found in the language Jesus spoke, which is Aramaic, and according to the Aramaic, the word is "Kepha" which means "ROCK"

Your logic is laughable. Christ is called "Petra" in 1 Cor. 10:4.

So, your nonsense that Matthew didn't called Peter Petra because he is masculine is not to be taken serious.

easymancfc:
You are painting much into the Story, it says there that Peter became afraid when the Jews saw him eating with the Gentiles, He was scared and Paul rightly corrected him... He didn't declare it was wrong to eat with gentiles... Jesus didn't take Peter's authority even after he denied him 3 times, likewise did that not take away from him.. Paul was subject to the decision of Peter and the apostles according to acts 15:15-22.. because he took issue of disagreement from that same Antioch to Peter and the apostles in Jerusalem...

Why are you lying and distorting the Bible?

Paul clearly stated in Gal. 2:11 that Peter was to be blamed! He even rebuked him because "walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel"(v. 14).

After Matt. 16:18, the disciples are seen in Luk. 22:24 striving for the greatest position. If they understood Jesus' statement to mean that Peter was their leader, why would they be striving for the greatest position?

easymancfc:
Indeed we are a kingdom of priests like Peter rightly says... In the CATHOLIC CHURCH we call that "THE UNIVERSAL PRIESTHOOD of all believers. Peter here was QUOTING THE OLD TESTAMENT if you don't know, he was quoting exodus 19:6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”
but just like all of Israel are priests... but yet God told Moses to establish a Priesthood from Aaron's sons and Levi (see deut 18:1-
so Also we have the MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD, of which Paul seems to allude to in Romans 15:15 But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God 16 to be a MINISTER of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the PRIESTLY SERVICE of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

You need to stop reading Roman Catholic Bibles.

easymancfc,

Gal. 2:7-8 states that the gospel of the circumcision(i.e. to the Jews) was committed by GOD to Peter, while the gospel to the uncircumcision(i.e. to the gentiles, which included the Romans) was committed to Paul.

Why would Peter leave his ministry in Judea to go and dwell in Rome, a gentile area?

The Book of Romans was written by the Apostle Paul "to all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints". (Romans 1:7) In Romans 16:1-15, Paul greets 26 people by name. He never mentions Peter. If Peter was the leader of the Church in Rome, then why didn't Paul mention him?

Paul wrote five letters from a Roman prison (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Timothy, and Philemon). He never mentions Peter. The man who stuck with Paul to help him and encourage him in Rome was Luke -- not Peter. (Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11)

easymancfc,

The Book of Acts is the history of the early Church up until a few years before Peter's death. It says nothing about Peter being in authority over the whole Church. It shows no connection between Peter and Rome.

Acts 28:14-15 tells how Paul met with the "brethren" in Rome, but it makes no mention of Peter. As we shall see, when Paul met with Peter in Jerusalem, Peter was identified by name.

Acts 2:14 and Acts 8:14 say that Peter was in Jerusalem. Acts 9:36-43 says that Peter went to Joppa, which is near Jerusalem. In chapter 10 of the Book of Acts, Peter is still in Joppa. Acts 11:2 says that Peter returned to Jerusalem.

Joppa is about thirty miles from Jerusalem. If the Book of Acts records this much detail about Peter's visit to a nearby town, wouldn't it tell us if Peter went all the way to Rome? Particularly since it does tell us that Paul went to Rome.

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light" (1 Peter 2:9)

Peter emphatically states that every Christian is a royal priest to GOD. Why does Roman Catholicism "ordain priests" who blaspheme by claiming to have power to forgive sins?

easymancfc,

Peter's name in Greek is Petros(masculine noun), meaning a small, detached stone. But the Greek word which is translated rock in Matt. 16:18 is petra(feminine noun). In other words, Jesus said, "you are Petros, and on this petra will I build my church..."

Paul stated emphatically that Peter walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel in Antioch(Gal. 2:14). He even rebuked Peter. So, if Peter was the rock on which the church was built: does it mean that the foundation of the church walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel? How can the foundation of the church be a man susceptible to falling into error? Is such a foundation sure?