1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Was Peter the First Pope?

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by t3gah, Dec 24, 2004.

?

Was Peter the First Pope?

Poll closed Jan 14, 2005.
  1. Yes

    6 vote(s)
    28.6%
  2. No

    7 vote(s)
    33.3%
  3. I'm not sure

    4 vote(s)
    19.0%
  4. Who cares?!

    4 vote(s)
    19.0%
  5. Other (I'll post my response)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. t3gah

    t3gah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,125
    Ratings:
    +48
    According to my research the apostle Peter was chosen as the first Pope for the reason that he was anointed. Some believe that Pope's shouldn't marry because the apostle Peter wasn't married but there's a scripture in the bible that states that Jesus cured Peter's mother-in-law of a grievous sickness. Check out these scriptures:
    [World English Bible]
    Matthew 8:14 When Jesus came into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother lying sick with a fever. 8:15 He touched her hand, and the fever left her. She got up and served him.

    Mark 1:29 Immediately, when they had come out of the synagogue, they came into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. 1:30 Now Simon’s wife’s mother lay sick with a fever, and immediately they told him about her. 1:31 He came and took her by the hand, and raised her up. The fever left her, and she served them.

    Luke 4:38 He rose up from the synagogue, and entered into Simon’s house. Simon’s mother-in-law was afflicted with a great fever, and they begged him for her. 4:39 He stood over her, and rebuked the fever; and it left her. Immediately she rose up and served them.
    Was Peter the First Pope?
    This is also a Poll so please cast your votes. :)
     
  2. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +953
    Ahhhhh.... this again.

    Well T3, time for an education.;) .... let's hope you're up for it.

    As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant "small stone" and "large rock" in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant "rock."If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used.

    One thing to remember=Jesus did not speak Greek.

    In Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).

    And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’

    When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock.

    The real issue here is your faulty knowledge of Greek and Aramaic.

    As easily as this mistake is corrected.... the rest of your mistakes about the Primacy of Peter can be dealt with..... I hope you have the courage to do some real study..... not just cut and paste someone else's opinions.

    Peace in Christ,
    Scott
    www.catholic.com
    Some helpful links for study:
    http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6577
    http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1630
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. t3gah

    t3gah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,125
    Ratings:
    +48
    First...
    Being a retired witness of Jehovah, the document I posted was and is way more detailed than I could come up with by myself with topics and references that only an extremely learnered person could do the research to verify. I would also like to point out that the document I posted also was way to long in my opinion to make a point that I think Jesus resolved long before this whole Pope issue came about and that is the fact that Simon Peter had a wife since Jesus cured his mother-in-law.

    In my studies I have found that Simon Peter had a mother-in-law as stated here, in Matthew 8:14,15, when Jesus cures her of her ailment. Doesn't this fact automatically disqualify Simon Peter as the first Pope? I mean, what are the qualifications to be a Pope anyway?

    Secondly...
    Is it possible that in Matthew 16:18 Jesus wasn't literally saying that Simon Peter was to be the actual rock but rather his qualities were to be the foundation on which congregations of the future would be built?
     
  4. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +953
    t3gah,

    Or..... you could do some historical research outside the realm of JW documents and learn something new..... like a little Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew perhaps?

    I see that you did not have any comments about my previous post..... ;)
    Nope....... shows how little you know about the Papacy. Maybe next time you can do some reasearch before cutting and pasting something here.

    Anything is possible...... but, after being shown how wrong you were with your mistaken information about what "the rock" actually translates to...... I think it's more likely that 2,000 years of history show you are just plain wrong.

    Peace,
    Scott
     
  5. t3gah

    t3gah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,125
    Ratings:
    +48
    As a research tool I have some publications and the Watchtower Library CD at my disposal for research but I believe that's a tad one-sided. I did read your posts and the links you had as well. A bit over the top for me, but I'll have another go at them. I was wondering if you had a site in mind for the original language scriptures. I know I can do a search but there are countless thousands if not millions of hits that will come up on Google.com. By the way, someone on this forum sent me a link to Catholic history. Have you looked at this one?

    http://www.unmaskingcatholicism.com/Contents.shtml

    And is their content reliable?
     
  6. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,000
    Ratings:
    +1,057
    Since when is scholarship determined by a poll of the students?
     
  7. LittleNipper

    LittleNipper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,673
    Ratings:
    +29
    Jesus is the LORD of both Aramic and Greek. Jesus is the Head of the Church. It seems odd that the first writing of the New Testament would be in Greek, if that Greek was not what Christ meant. And who would understand better then the one who wrote down what the LORD meant.

    Jesus is Christ (God with us), the Messiah, Savior, Redeemer, Friend-------Upon this foundation is the Church of Christ established, built, and fortified.
     
  8. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +953
    I am not sure what you're getting at..... but you seem to be forgetting that the early church members and leaders spoke Greek.... and knew exactly what Christ meant.... and recognized Peter as first among equals.... leader of the Christian Church.... a simple study of history will show you that... You should read some.;)

    Scott
     
  9. Green Gaia

    Green Gaia Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    19,775
    Ratings:
    +1,920
    The Catholics are the only ones who recongize the Pope's authority, they believe Peter was the first Pope. Who cares what the rest of us non-Catholics think? We don't recognize the Pope as head of our churches, so I don't really think we get a say in who was or was not qualified to be one.
     
  10. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    40,754
    Ratings:
    +15,017
    Religion:
    Judaism
    It looks to me like some anti-Catholic trash that you irresponsibly tossed out to get a response. What do you think?
     
  11. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +953
    Well, I care Maize......;) Sometimes it's nice to hear from someone who is not emotionally attached to a topic to chime in with an honest opinion based on the presented evidence.
     
  12. t3gah

    t3gah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,125
    Ratings:
    +48
    If the scripture show that Jesus is the foundation and Peter's other name means rock, clearly Peter is just a pebble and not the foundation or as one other scripture shows, the chief cornerstone which is what Jesus is described as.


    Jesus said "nobody comes to the father except through me".

    Why isn't the Catholic religion just named Christians?

    Why isn't Jesus said to be the first Pope?
     
  13. t3gah

    t3gah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,125
    Ratings:
    +48
    The Son of God couldn't speak Greek? The Son of God who showed on many occasions that he could tell what persons intentions were in their minds couldn't understand Greek?!

    The Holy Spirit is shown to allow those anointed by it to speak in tongues (other languages) which means what?! Could Jesus the Son of God, anointed with Holy Spirit speak Greek?

    IF the folks at Pentecost 33 CE could, why not the Son of God? It's a bad assumption to say that the Son of God could only speak Hebrew or Aramaic because that's what they spoke when he was growning up. Jesus childhood and young adult life, although enlightening to him it must have been, was all left behind once he was anointed by Holy Spirit during his baptism by John the baptist.

    Jesus' powers were limitless except regarding bringing himself back from the dead. That required God's help.

    Jesus expelled demons, walked on water, cured all sorts of illnesses, stopped the windstorm from blowing, cursed a tree and so on. Jesus transfigured himself into three different persons, himself, Moses and Elijah.

    Couldn't speak Greek?! Couldn't speak Greek?! Couldn't speak Greek?! What???? You must be joking!

    unbelieveable
     
  14. t3gah

    t3gah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,125
    Ratings:
    +48
    Based on the account below Jesus asks Peter to say who he thinks Jesus is. Peter answers and then Jesus says he's going to build the church on Peter. Peter's honesty, not the person himself. Reasoning? Why would God go through all the trouble to ensure that Jesus would be the promised Messiah only to make Peter the template for The Way and not the Son of God?

    [World English Bible] Matthew


    16:13 Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?"

    16:14 They said, "Some say John the Baptizer, some, Elijah, and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."

    16:15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

    16:16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

    16:17 Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 16:18 I also tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 16:19 I will give to you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven; and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven." 16:20 Then he commanded the disciples that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ. 16:21 From that time, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up.

     
  15. t3gah

    t3gah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,125
    Ratings:
    +48
    [World English Bible]
    Matthew 23:8 But don’t you be called ‘Rabbi,’ for one is your teacher, the Christ, and all of you are brothers. 23:9 Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven. 23:10 Neither be called masters, for one is your master, the Christ.

    The scriptures above show that Peter is not the foundation that Jesus intented to build The Way on. The apostles are 'brothers' and Jesus is 'Rabbi' or 'teacher'. Jesus, not Peter.

    Jesus commands the apostles to teach all disciples to observe the commandments that the apostles learned from Jesus. The scripture is Matthew 28:20.
     
  16. Rozs

    Rozs Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2004
    Messages:
    46
    Ratings:
    +1
    Peter will never be a Pope.
    Because...

    Matt 23:9
    And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, [even] he who is in heaven.

    In religion, we must never call anybody as our father.
    Pope means "Papa" or "Pater" in english "Father"
     
  17. No*s

    No*s Captain Obvious

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2004
    Messages:
    5,917
    Ratings:
    +471
    T3, yes, he was, but I understand this a bit differently.

    You should, as Scott has suggested, read some historical literature on this. Simply avoid all modern references and read primary source material. You can find it at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2.

    The Church started with one office, that of the bishop and was called both presvyteros and episkopos. We see in Acts how the deaconate was created. Christ didn't institute it...the Church did, and it wasn't done on biblical authority, just the authority of the Church. Now, the division between priest and deacon came about by the end of the second century. Here, presvyteros and episkopos were distinguished, so that they referred to "priest" and "bishop" respectively.

    In the Early Church, many bishops were called "popes," and over time this number decreased. In the fifth century, several groups broke away over the issue of the Council of Chalcedon. The highest bishop in the Coptic Church is still called the "Pope."

    Also, this distinction has more biblical basis than you would think. "Bishop" is the word "epikopos." It was transliterated into Latin as "episcopus." This was ported into English, so it lost the ending and became "episcop." Somewhere in there, the "e" was lost and the "p" strengthened to "b."

    Likewise, "prevyteros" became the Latin "prebyterus." It was shortened in slang to "prester." This was transliterated into English, the "-er" ending was dropped, and the "e" lengthened to "ei."

    You already know "deacon," no doubt.

    These words were passed down from generation to generation. It is the NT language. The theology was likewise passed down. So, the Roman Catholic/Orthodox Catholic divisions here are actually quite biblical *if* you don't divorce the Bible from history. Your sources are foolish enough to do just that. The monarchial power of the Roman See is a result of changes to society and time, and an extension of the original prominence it had. It isn't a coincidence that Romans is the longest of Paul's epistles, or that Ignatius wrote the lenthiest introduction to the Romans.

    Now, I reccomend you read these books in the Church Fathers, and then, come back after you've done so and tell us how you perceive the papacy.

    Ignatius (7 letters) all quite short.
    http://www.philthompson.net/pages/library/ignephes.html
    http://www.philthompson.net/pages/library/ignmagne.html
    http://www.philthompson.net/pages/library/ignphila.htm
    http://www.philthompson.net/pages/library/ignroman.html
    http://www.philthompson.net/pages/library/ignsmyrn.html
    http://www.philthompson.net/pages/library/igntrall.html
    http://www.philthompson.net/pages/library/ignpoly.html
    http://www.philthompson.net/pages/library/ignmart.htm

    St. Ignatius' writings can be a sticky point of dispute among scholars, but they are all indisputably early. They are also all quite short. As a note: he was a disciple of the Apostle John. I think he might know what he's talking about.

    I Clement:
    http://www.philthompson.net/pages/library/1clement.html

    This is the letter of the Roman Church to the Corinthian Church. It's about the size of Romans. There are two dating schemse. 90 AD is the most common one among scholars. I favor the 70AD range. That's another issue, though. Special note: this is probably the same Clement mentioned by Paul as a companion.

    I normally don't tell people "Here! Go read this!," but frankly, you haven't studied history and these are a good place to start.
     
  18. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +953
    This has to be the most ridiculous example of theology I have ever seen.

    You make an argument based on one language to explain your position..... then when it backfires..... you want everyone to toss out any linguistic evidence because it no longer is relevant.:areyoucra

    Jesus spoke every language..... in fact, I think the Sermon on the Mount was given in English...... a few parables in German....... on the Cross I think he was speaking Japanese.:biglaugh:

    You continue to help with conversion to the Catholic church...... we thank you.

    Scott
     
  19. SK2005

    SK2005 Saint in training

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Messages:
    1,090
    Ratings:
    +130
    Yes, Peter was the first Pope.

    What's the saying. "upon Peter I build my rock" or something like that.
     
  20. SK2005

    SK2005 Saint in training

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Messages:
    1,090
    Ratings:
    +130
    Matthew 16:18-19
    "And so I tell you, Peter: you are a rock, and on this rock foundation I will build my church, and not even death will ever be able to overcome it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven;"
     
Loading...