₦airaland Forum

luckyCO:
Romans 14:17 kingdom of heaven is not about meat(roman dogma and teachings) and drink(their understand of scripture) but about righteoisness peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.

Romans 14:17, doesn't take anything away from the church,
I don't know where you get the drink part from, but a discipline to abstinence from meat, doesn't mean the Holy Spirit is not in the church or that the church doesn't preach righteousness ,
Stop making the Bible say what it doesn't... that's not the context is saying
the context is, if eating meat or drinking will make another stumble, then don't eat it

What makes you a member of Christ body are:
Repentenace,Baptism,Holy Ghost baptism and santification.

You can see that from amongs those assemblies spiritual churches are formed, individual and personal to join the body of Christ and He is known of them.[/quote]Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”
42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

the point is, these 3000 people were added to a physical body of believers not just a spiritual one..

FOR US ITS BOTH, NOT EITHER SPIRITUAL OR PHYSICAL


ACCORDING TO THE WHOLE SCRIPTURE, THE CHURCH IS BOTH A PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL COMMUNITY OF BELIEVERS WITH CHRIST AS ITS HEAD

luckyCO:
Your thought and your belief are the same.
Eph 3:15 said family in heaven, that means paul is talking about physical thing.
What you failed to understand is that the second Adam is spiritual being,the head of the church is spiritual and the body also is spiritual before you are accepted into the body. You are refering church names (rcc,winners,redeem etc) as the body of christ, that is the genesis of the eror.
Everybody supplies to the other part anyone that refises to supply he cut off.
Every of your quote that sounds physical are all talking about spiritual that is what we must be before be a member of the body.
Eg: what makes you a member of RCC - baptism and you attend cathecism and pass,pay all dues,sign amc and amf,recieve holy Commion/confess your sin to a priest at least once in a year.

What makes you winners member - you attend foundation class and pass and get baptised.

What makes you jehova witness, you are baptised after series of knowing their teaching which you must attend 12years,etc

What makes you a member of Christ body are:
Repentenace,Baptism,Holy Ghost baptism and santification.

You can see that from amongs those assemblies spiritual churches are formed, individual and personal to join the body of Christ and He is known of them.

If you call RCC,Johova witness,Redeem,winers CAC body of Christ, you would have decieved your member because no member of the household of God who doesnot have inheritance in the next age. Second death has no dominion over them.

No sir, it is you who Is wrong, the second Adam (Jesus ) Is not Spirit, he was also man, of flesh and blood, and he didn't ascend as a Spiritual being but as flesh and blood in his glorified body, that is why he could eat fish and bread with his disciples see john 21, that is why Thomas could put his hands. Into the holes made by nails and his side... See John 20:24-28

Jesus was a visible person on earth not just a spirit, so too were the disciplines he appointed and gave his mission...

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father. 

Gal 4:4 But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who wereunder the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

Hebrews 4: 15 For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning. 

Even when Paul was persecuting the Church in Jerusalem... People not Spirit ...
Jesus calls the physical people Paul was killing his body
Acts 9: 5 And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting;

and who was Paul persecuting?
Acts 8:1 answers the question
And on that day a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the region of Judea and Samar′ia, except the apostles

and what is this church in Jerusalem?
Acts 2:4 4 And all who believed were together and had all things in common;
47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
Acts 4:3 2 Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common.

SO IT IS CLEAR THAT FROM THE EARLY DAYS OF CHRISTIANITY, AFTER PENTECOST THAT THE "CHURCH IS THE PHYSICAL COMMUNITY OF BELIEVERS ... NOT JUST THEIR SPIRITS...

luckyCO:
That is the main reason I said we will not agree because you still quote scripture I dont believe you know their meaning.

A single revelation you have about God personally can change your life forever and no devil can prevail against it.

When you said church is physical that is when I get problem with your ascertion because we are spirit being to gather and worship God spiritually that gathering spiritually is called church but gathering physically can be called rcc,Redeem,winers,chisen etc

The universal church has no visible head,we have only one spiritual head that is Jesus because our gathering is spiritual,christ apoint pastors to be overseers of their different local churches such that Holy Ghost minister to them and be will our General Overseer.

That is why peter,John and later paul upon higher knowledge God gave him still didnt preach different from peter,andrew,John etc since their knowledge is from same source.
But trace rome you have vertican 1,2 and 3 is coming out all varies by different popes.

The introduction all these claims are what they used bluff our head which made us think all manner of things about catholic that has no salvation virtue eg we are the first church,peter is first pope,Jesus cloth and cross is in rome,peters key is 7 sacrament etc but I dont see how these claims will give me salvation or make me love another believer!

When you say weakness I got confused,the person whose church is build upon must be perfect else the church will no longer be the foundation/pillar of truth.
God revealed to peter the truth,peter didnt know the truth,Christ gave him the key,peter didnt know where the key came from. Now you are saying that they key mean roman church is peters succession because you believe peter is carrying the church when he was about to die he carried the church to pope then as peter is prim minster during apostolic era so is pope now.

That ascertion is very very wrong.

First of all, WE ARE NOT SPIRITS, GOD IS,
WE ARE A BODY SOUL COMPOSITE... again you misinterprete scripture
John 4: 24 GOD IS SPIRIT, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” 

GOD IS THE SPIRIT NOT US...

we are a body soul composite like Jesus himself said
Mat 10: 28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell...

We worship God with our bodies also
Not just with our Spirits

1 cor 6: The body is not meant for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two shall become one.” 17 But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him

Romans 12:1  I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your BODIES as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship

and OUR BODIES will be resurrected albeit in a glorified state
Paul talks about it in
1 cor 15
Hebrews 6: 2 with instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the RESURRECTION OF the DEAD, and eternal judgment.


Concerning passing on authority...

Paul tells two of his disciples Timothy and Titus to ordain new leaders (Bishops and deacons) to give them power and authority By laying hands on them just as they were ordained ...
(see 1 Tim 3:1-13, 2 Tim 2:2, 2 Tim 1:6-7, 1 Tim 4:14,)

We can deduce from here, that power and authority can be passed by laying on of hands from the apostles and their successors, Paul told Timothy, Titus, etc, Peter would have told John Mark, etc...

luckyCO:
The only reason we may not agree is because you quote so many things that has many different meaning as applied to what you are saying, this made me hold myself from diverting our discussion.

The meaning of a verse can be found in the preceding chapter or next of within, God allowed the bible to be compiled that way to sort out children of the Promise to that of the bond women.

When we were preparing for holy communion a story was put fort to us; one man each time he wants to go church he put one pebble into a container, after one year he went back and saw only one, which means he only went to church one time in that whole year.
The body of Christ is purely Spiritual, 1000 people(physical) may attend to a church but only very few attend with their spirit hence Christ, instructed us that God is looking for worshipers that will worship Him in Spirit and truth not truth and Spirit because you can never knew the truth without the Spirit of God hence gathering/convocation does not form the body of Christ the Church.

Only one sin brought down Adam/Even(He has Gods blessing physical) , then if the Church of Jesus Christ is built upon Peter(Has God's blessings physical- the church built upon him) dont you think that one sin can equally bring down the Church because peter was already down before he strengthened himself the church is gone like Adam/Eve?

The church was not built on Peter, it was the revelation that God gave peter the gates of hell cant prevail. It was that revelation assured him of the key to open the door of salvation and gospel was spread throughout the world, after that incidence foundation of our faith was lain by peter and other apostles, after apostolic ministry,came prophetic,evangelical,pastoral and teaching.
That is what we are enjoying now waiting for the return or Christ.

The Body of Christ indeed has a spiritual dimension but it is not "PURELY SPIRITUAL LIKE YOU SAY"...
the Bible talks about the church as the body of Christ in a physical dimension not only in a Spiritual dimension

1 Tim 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the HOUSEHOLD of GOD, which is the CHURCH of the living God, the PILLAR and BULWARK of the TRUTH...

A household is a physical thing first before being spiritual, A household consists of physical people...

Ephesians 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,

Like I said earlier, A household consists of physical people...

Ephesians 4:11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipment of the saints, for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,

Again if it was only a Spiritual dimension it wouldn't need physical offices or officers

Gal 1:2 and all the brethren who are with me, To the churches of Galatia:

Paul was not writing to spirits. but to an assembly or gathering or convocation or Household of people...

we see same in
1 thess 1 Paul, Silva′nus, and Timothy,

To the church of the Thessalo′nians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:

To Jesus, his Church is not just to be a Spiritual one but a physical one, that's why he said in Mathew 18:15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, TELL IT TO THE CHURCH; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

how can you tell a Spiritual Church in "Peoples heart" to settle a physical case between brethren...

Paul emphasizes this right of the physical Church to judge cases among believers in

1 cor 6: 1When one of you has a grievance against a brother, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life! 4 If then you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who are least esteemed by the church?

It is this Physical Church that Paul says is the Pillar and bulwark of truth in 1 Tim 3:15...
.
AM NOT SAYING THE CHURCH DOESN'T HAVE A SPIRITUAL ASPECT BUT AM NOT DENYING THE OBVIOUS PHYSICAL ASPECT...
the aspect that the world can see
WHICH JESUS HIMSELF PRAYED FOR IN
John 17:20 “I do not pray for these only, BUT ALSO FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE in me THROUGH THEIR WORD, 21 THAT THEY MAY ALL BE ONE; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so THAT THE WORLD MAY BELIEVE THAT THOU HAST SENT ME.

whether we like it or not, the church is composed of flesh and blood human being, and all human association require leadership... and this leadership is not unique to the Catholic Church....
.DEEPER LIFE have Kumuyi
LIVING FATH have Oyedepo
MOUNTAIN OF FIRE have Odukoya
REDEEM have Adeboye
DUNAMIS have Enenche
Even
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES Have The Governing Body...
No one acuses those leadership which are Man made

but Peter who Jesus picked in John 21:15-26 and Luke 22:32 is difficult for people to accept because it is related to the Catholic Church, .....
IT IS WELL

Splinz:
Of course, you're not far from the truth. Here are some refreshing history:



To learn more about this Simon Magus, check out this thread of mine: https://www.nairaland.com/3558502/true-founder-history-catholic-church#52587802

Conspiracy theories....

You know it's funny how every anti Catholic denomination have their own theory of How the Catholic Church is an apostate church... each with a different origin... Jehovah's witnesses gave their own, Mormons have their own, plus all the other Protestant denominations


YOUR SOURCE HAS ALREADY SOLD YOU OUT, IT'S NOT HISTORICALLY ACCURATE FOR ONE, ITS FROM AN ATI CATHOLIC SOURCE, SO IT IS NOT FREE FROM BIAS AND DEFAMATION...

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

Going around in circles again...
that was the beginning of the whole discussion with you...
Where in the Bible does it say Bible that Peter has to acknowledge himself as Pope for him to be Pope,

The name might not have been established but Peter clearly had a primacy in the early Church...

DoctorAlien:
From wikipedia

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

They were indeed succeeding Peter.

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

DoctorAlien:
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.

Like I said, all are historically accurate and have been verified and attested to Also by historical sources and even top protestant scholars so I don't care about what you think, because you have no historical pedigree, so I will go with the experts
Secondly like I said even if that Pope was appointed by a German king or whatever, what matters is He has been validly ordained and can trace his line of ordination back to the apostles... you didn't give any citation for that story so until I know what happened,
..
provide historically accurate citations so I can look it up..

One thing you should know, the Pope doesn't fall from heaven, He is appointed from among the Bishops of the Church provided they are validly ordained...
So whoever was chosen to become Pope,if he has valid ordination and the Church accepts him, thats all, he gets the authority...

DoctorAlien:
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.

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...

DoctorAlien:
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?

Small stone instead of Rock is what??
Peter knew he was rebuking him because of what he said,
here he is praising Peter's confession and giving him the keys..

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

Wrong again... Like I said the word index for Rock and Peter in the Aramaic is both Kepha so I don't know what you are puncturing it is literally according to Jesus in his native Aramaic

you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my
Church.

it is the Greek translation that word play of petros and petra come in....


so I don't know what you are puncturing

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

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..

DoctorAlien:
easymancfc,

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

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.....

DoctorAlien:
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.

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

DoctorAlien:
evna means pebble found in river beds and beaches.

Kepha means rock or stone! Stop reading catholic forums.

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

Simon Magnus is New... I used to hear about emperor Constantine but this Simon Magnus story is really cracking me up...
People talk about Constantine but the Church had a Pope before Constantine came into the Picture when he stopped the persecutions and Legalized Christianity.... Constantine became Emperor in 306 AD and he legalized Christianity within that time...

HERE IS A LIST OF EARLY CHRISTIAN QUOTES CONCERNING THE PAPACY 106 YEARS BEFORE CONSTANTINE CAME IN.. and ALL OF THEM CAN BE VERIFIED HISTORICALLY IF YOU VISIT ACCURATE HISTORICAL SITES

Ignatius



"Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict" (Epistle to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110]).

Dionysius



"You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Epistle to Pope Soter of Rome [A.D. 166], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:.



Irenaeus



"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3:1:1 [A.D. 189]).



Irenaeus



"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]" (ibid., 3:3:3).



Irenaeus



"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall . . . [point] out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).



Clement of Alexandria



"The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed" (Sketches [A.D. 190], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6:14:1).



Gaius



"It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome" (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:5).



Tertullian



"But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood, where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]" (De Prescriptione 36 [A.D. 200]).

Splinz:
This title is meaningless. The 'pope' is a title manufactured by Simon Magus- a sorcerer and founder of the Catholic church.

Go and read sound history, not those distorted pieces of crap by the false church of Rome.

Simon Magnus... founder of the Catholic Church? Buhahaha... ignorance is terrible...
Show me your sources then... I mean accurate historical sources, Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia, Oxford etc.... not some two bit, anti Catholic protestant website


For my part I will refer to Early Christian like Tertullian, Eusebius, Justin the Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch,Etc who can be historically verified

DoctorAlien:
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.

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...

DoctorAlien:
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.

I have no knowledge of scripture LLLOOOOLLLL
indeed, gal 2:9 is an exception, because it is not a listing of the apostles...
in all the listings of the apostles Peter is mentioned first...
See
Matthew 10:1-4 , Mark 3:16-19 , Luke 6:14-16 ,
Acts 1:13
Peter's name always heads the list of Apostles.

SUPREMACY... NOT EXACTLY .... HONOUR.... YES...
Just like throughout the Bible, when listing a man"s children, you start with the ELDEST... OR THE GREATEST

DoctorAlien:
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?

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

DoctorAlien:
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.

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

DoctorAlien:
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.

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

DoctorAlien:
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?

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 AND NAME CHANGES IN SCRIPTURE AFFECTS A PERSONS LIFE ( ASK ABRAHAM AND SARAH)... 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

DoctorAlien:
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 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.

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

DoctorAlien:
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?

then the answer is simple... Peter and Paul were not in Rome at the same time... just like Paul and John were not in Ephesus at the same time...
like I said...
I HAVE ALOT OF HISTORICALLY ACCURATE SOURCES AND TESTIMONY OF EARLY CHRISTIANS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE PETER WAS IN ROME

DoctorAlien:
Going by your logic, what justifies giving a man a feminine title?

Can you call a man a queen?

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

DoctorAlien:
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.

How much do you know about Bartholomew, or Mathew, or Andrew, or Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot,
How much do you know of them from the book of "Acts of the Apostles" according to Luke 6:16, they are all apostles.

the Church and the apostles who were alive continue to sojourn and do things after the book of acts was closed in chapter 28,
whether you like it or not Acts focuses on Paul than any of the twelve apostles
so your logic doesn't follow...
Luke would have failed to record it if Peter went to Rome after the book was written

DoctorAlien:
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?

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...

DoctorAlien:
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.

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

DoctorAlien:
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)

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

DoctorAlien:
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.

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