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. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +950
    If you understood Aramaic at all you'll see why we think it does mean what UD thinks it means.

    AGAIN... a personal interpretation of Scripture is by no means convincing evidence of EITHER position.
     
  2. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,193
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    That it is a flawed prinicple and is not found in scripture. What else is there to understand? There were many factions based on who a particular disciple believed to be the "Alpha" Apostle and this was roundly rebuked.

    I Corinthians 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."
    13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14 I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. NIV

    As always, I will continue to love others and follow only Jesus.
     
  3. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +950
    "flawed principle"...... :confused:

    We believe the power of the Holy Spirit will not lead us into error/evil.

    Show me the "flaw" in that please.
    ... AGAIN, your opinon... the quote that you cite (in MY opinion) has nothing to do with the primacy (or lack thereof) of Peter... Paul is trying to show that no individual has any power, but that all of their power comes from Christ. Paul surely believed that individuals HAD power or why else would he dare rebuke others for their errors?.... but Paul was trying to show that his power to rebuke and preach as an Apostle was drawn from the power of Christ and the Holy Spirit.

    We affirm this: the Papacy is powerless without Christ and the Holy Spirit.

    AGAIN you make the mistake of imposing your interpretation of Scripture as THE interpretation of Scripture.

    :confused: This is not like ya ND,
    Scott
     
  4. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,626
    Ratings:
    +1,275
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Just out of curiousity what exactly do you think we as Catholics are following? No offense ND, but Christ is bigger then your interpretations of Scripture. He is God Almighty. To say "I follow Christ" is full of meaning. This doesn't mean you start chopping away at all those words that are in red (as some Bibles do). God is bigger then just what is written ND, once you begin to truly grasp this you are a step forward to understanding the Catholic Church.



    ~Victor
     
  5. Uncertaindrummer

    Uncertaindrummer Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    308
    Ratings:
    +31
    Then explain to me how Jesus spoke in Aramic, yet I need to know Greek to interpret the passage...
     
  6. dan

    dan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,464
    Ratings:
    +96
    It's Aramaic, the closest we have to Christ's intended meaning is the Greek. In Greek it is possible to tell to what each phrase refers to. For example, it is asserted that the gates of Hell will never prevail against the church that is founded upon Peter, the Rock. Let's break it down.

    It is said that Peter means rock, so Christ must be addressing him here; but the Greek uses two different words for rock. Peter is petros (small rock) in Greek. Petra (the word for rock used here, upon which the church will be built) means bedrock. Peter was never referred to as petra. Christ is the Rock (and Stone of Israel). Upon him a house will be able to withstand the buffetings of the adversary (Matt. 7:25).

    Now to the gates of Hell. SOme say this means the church will not experience an apostasy, or falling away. The gates of Hell will never prevail against the church. Again, an understanding of Greek changes everything.

    What is a gate for? It keeps something either in or out. The gates of Hell don't really fight to keep anything out, so they must be keeping something in ("prevail" here is a translation of the Greek katischyo, which means hold hold down, hold back, detain or suppress). Apparently Christ (the Rock upon which the Church will be built) will defeat the gates of Hell in their design to keep something in. What could that be? Let's look at the Greek. The thing the gates intend to hold back is not the church, for the object is not in the accusative, but the partitive genitive; it is "hers," it belongs to her, or is a part of her. Whatever the gates of Hell seek to hold back it is the rightful property of Hell.

    What does that mean? Who belongs to Hell? Well, everyone who doesn't accept Christ. So Christ is gonna let them all out? No, but some. I Peter 4:6 - the Gospel is preached to the dead that they might live according to God's will. I Peter 3:18,19 - Christ suffered to bring us to God, and look, He goes to do the same for the dead! Funny how Peter is the one telling us all this rather than talking about how he's the Pope. He understood what Christ told him in Matt. 16:18. How will the gates of Hell not keep these people in? Revelation 1:18 - Christ has the keys to death and Hell. Well, we know the keys to death means that He brings to pass the resurrection, but what does it mean to have the keys of Hell? It means He can unlock the gates of Hell and let those out that have accepted His Gospel and fulfilled the requirements (I Corinthians 15:29). He will let them out of prison (Isaiah 24:22; 42:7).

    Recapping, the Rock upon which the church is built is Christ and because of Him the gates of Hell will not prevail. Christ will open them up and let out the prisoners. Oh, by the way, Peter was given that kind of power here on earth (Matt. 16:19), but for death and Hell it is reserved for Christ.

    It seems one way in English, but the scriptures weren't written in English (as you pointed out), and the only way to really comprehend them is to understand them the way they were penned.
     
  7. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +950
    There's your first mistake... in your assumption that you somehow know better than any of us what "Christ's intended meaning" was.... that's just garbage, plain and simple.

    Many scholars assert that the Gospel was originally written in Armaic and even if you don't agree with that, taking the time to do a word study will show you that there are several phrases in the surrounding text that are Aramaic in origin (the introductory phrase "blessed are you" and many others).... NOT GREEK.
    Let's...
    That's our whole point Dan... to cram your interpretation of the phrase by using Greek means that you have to change gender... something you DON'T have to do in Aramaic.
    .... or just pretend that your understanding is the ONLY one... that seems to be working just fine for ya.

    Hey, quick question.... what about all the Early Church Fathers who supported the Papacy who spoke GREEK?:confused:

    Hmmm... you must know Greek better than they do... right?;) Oy vey
     
  8. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,193
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    Scott,

    you have yet to show me "inerrancy" in the scriptures. You show me that, and I will not think it flawed.

    No Scott, I have not tried to "impose" my interpretation on anyone. However, if you don't want to understand what I believe and why, then say so plainly and I will shut up. No questions asked.

    Victor,

    I only understand what "Catholics" believe as they tell me. Much of that is gleaned from what Scott has told me on this board. Apparently, they hold the teachings of the Catholic Church and the Pope higher than the Scriptures. If that works for you, then fine. It doesn't work for me. However, I DO know what I believe!
     
  9. dan

    dan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,464
    Ratings:
    +96
    You asked me how an understanding of Greek was useful. I'm just explaining that reading it in the original Greek is better than reading it in English. I never said my understanding of Christ's meaning wsa better, I only said Greek is closer than English.

    And I'm well aware of the fact that the Gospels were originally written in Aramaic; but we seem to have misplaced all of our Aramaic versions, so Greek will be the next best.

    I'm also well aware of the grammatical implications of a translation from Aramaic to Greek, but you can't make assumptions about the Aramaic based on an English translation of the Greek. And the two different Greek words translated rock denote two entirely different things, not two different ways to say the same thing.

    The early church fathers, huh? The ones who weren't murdered? They seem to preach a different gospel than the one preached by the Popes. The Papacy begins with Constantine unless you subscribe to the tomes of traditions that bog down the history of the Catholic church, and I don't. If you have some evidence of their divine appointment please share it, but tradition means nothing to me; and Constantine is hardly a good place to start.
     
  10. chuck010342

    chuck010342 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Messages:
    942
    Ratings:
    +30
    those scriptures have nothing to do with Peter being the first pope
     
  11. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,626
    Ratings:
    +1,275
    Religion:
    Catholic
    The Catholic Church specifically denies that it is superior to Scripture. It says, “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 86). I hope you’re not going to try to tell the Church what it really believes.

    ~Victor
     
  12. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,626
    Ratings:
    +1,275
    Religion:
    Catholic
    In Spanish we also use the maleness and femaleness of words, just like in Greek. For example, if we wanted to say chair, we would say SILLA. The "A" gives it it's femaleness per se. Now, if we were to call a man a chair, we would keep the "A" in SILLA but it would be clear to those who spoke Spanish how the word SILLA was being used. That's why the Catholic position makes perfect sense to how the word rock was used in Greek. As a matter a fact even amongst Protestants this is getting ever so popular. Listen to what some have to say:

    The Least
    ~Victor
     
  13. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,193
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    Let me quote myself:
    As with all understanding, I am more than willing to adjust my concepts. That being said, that y'all preach against "sola scriptura" makes me believe that I am either being presented with double speak or that I still do not understand what you believe.

    But all we need to do to clear this up is to show a mention of the Pope or the papacy in the scriptures. Without that, you will have to pardon my belief that Catholics add to the scriptures in a way that I simply cannot accept. There are a number of inconsistencies just like this...

    a seperate priesthood that have been prohibited from marriage
    a seperate saint hood
    The book of common prayer
    Creeds
    infant baptism
    confirmation
    purgatory

    and the list can go on.
     
  14. Uncertaindrummer

    Uncertaindrummer Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    308
    Ratings:
    +31
    Also, to say the Papacy started with Constantine is ignorant, Dan. I will be back with the reasons why later.
     
  15. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,193
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    UD,

    This thread is about Peter being the first Pope. I only mentioned those few inconsistencies to demonstrate that there is more than just one issue that I disagree with. If you want to discuss these other issues, please start a new thread(s) and I will participate as I have time and interest.
     
  16. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +950
    Pete,

    You seem to be missing my point.... I am not trying to convince you that Peter was the first Pope... you know me better than that..... I am trying to deal with your assumption that this particular belief is not based upon Scripture.

    We have looked at the NT "evidence" and concluded that it points towards a Papacy.

    You have looked at the NT "evidence" and concluded that it does not point towards a Papacy.

    I just want you to understand that just because you are not moved by our evidence does not mean we don't have any.

    Hope you get me on this point...
    Scott
     
  17. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,193
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    Scott,

    using the word "assumption" is a bit inflammatory. Asserting my position does not constitute an assumption on my part. That I think your conclusions are wrong does not constitute an assumption on my part either. For the others, not agreeing with your conclusions does not constitute a mis-understanding on my part either.

    You have in the past contended that more is needed than the NT and that MUCH of your doctrine is derived from these extra-scriptural sources. To that end, I have been chided for my belief in sola scriptura as the reasons for my other "erroneous" beliefs. If this has changed, please advise me so.

    But whether you believe in the Pope or not, I still consider you a brother. :D
     
  18. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +950
    Yeah, yeah, yeah..... be nice why don't ya..... jerk.;)
    You have misunderstood.... sort of.... the fact that the Petrine office and more importantly the role of Bishop comes from (in our opinion) the NT means that any future "developments" by said leaders of the Church comes from the Bishops--- who come from Scripture.

    Everything is our theology is based on Scripture.... or at least no contrary to Scripture.
    I personally don't think I've got a "chiding" bone in my body:D ..... but you're right..... we just look at it differently.

    As I see it:
    ..... our faith is based upon Scripture..... your faith IS Scripture.

    ... but both come from the same Holy source of Christ.... that's why we get along so well Pete!

    Hope this helps,
    Scott
     
  19. Uncertaindrummer

    Uncertaindrummer Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    308
    Ratings:
    +31
    I certainly wasn't attempting to change the course of the subject. But if you are going to claim certain thigns have no basis in Scripture, I am going to argue. The truth is, I believe everything in Catholicism can be seen in Scripture, and you don't. What authority do you have to end the debate? None. I have the infallible Church to tell me I am correct.
     
  20. dan

    dan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,464
    Ratings:
    +96
    Are you saying the Catholic Church has never made a mistake?
     
Loading...