M1Buckeye said:

---

Did Jesus and the Holy Spirit forget to tell Paul? Or is it possible that Peter was, in fact, NEVER appointed the head of Jesus's church? I'm going with the latter.

Galatians 2:14
14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

---

jrico2727 said:

---

M1Buckeye said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

M1Buckeye said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

M1Buckeye said:

---

Did Jesus and the Holy Spirit forget to tell Paul? Or is it possible that Peter was, in fact, NEVER appointed the head of Jesus's church? I'm going with the latter.

Galatians 2:14
14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

---

Matthew 16:17-19


King James Version



17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


Why are you arguing with Jesus? Why do you not follow the scriptures? Don't you know the rebuke of St. Paul


Galatians 1:7-9


King James Version



7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

---

Peter was "a" rock; he wasn't "the" rock.

---

I guess that part was mistranslated, huh Did they put the A in Greek and the KJV just left it in for giggles?

If your position cannot be supported by scripture better to change the scripture than your position, right

---

I can provide a MOUNTAIN of scripture that demonstrates that God/Jesus is THE rock but you won't accept them. Your pride, ego, and vanity disallows you from considering the possibility that you are mistaken.

---

I can accept that God is the Rock and that he renamed Simon to Peter, changing his nature, and making him Rock which the mane Peter means. Your pride of thinking you no better that the Church which was left by Christ to interpret scriptures maybe should be checked, my friend

---

jrico2727 said:

---

M1Buckeye said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

M1Buckeye said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

M1Buckeye said:

---

Did Jesus and the Holy Spirit forget to tell Paul? Or is it possible that Peter was, in fact, NEVER appointed the head of Jesus's church? I'm going with the latter.

Galatians 2:14
14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

---

Matthew 16:17-19


King James Version



17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


Why are you arguing with Jesus? Why do you not follow the scriptures? Don't you know the rebuke of St. Paul


Galatians 1:7-9


King James Version



7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

---

Peter was "a" rock; he wasn't "the" rock.

---

I guess that part was mistranslated, huh Did they put the A in Greek and the KJV just left it in for giggles?

If your position cannot be supported by scripture better to change the scripture than your position, right

---

I can provide a MOUNTAIN of scripture that demonstrates that God/Jesus is THE rock but you won't accept them. Your pride, ego, and vanity disallows you from considering the possibility that you are mistaken.

---

I can accept that God is the Rock and that he renamed Simon to Peter, changing his nature, and making him Rock which the mane Peter means. Your pride of thinking you no better that the Church which was left by Christ to interpret scriptures maybe should be checked, my friend

---

jrico2727 said:

---

UTExan said:

---

M1Buckeye said:

---

Did Jesus and the Holy Spirit forget to tell Paul? Or is it possible that Peter was, in fact, NEVER appointed the head of Jesus's church? I'm going with the latter.

Galatians 2:14
14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

---

Don't forget papal infallibility.

---

Papal infallibility has nothing to do with that incident in scripture. St Paul was reminding Peter of his teaching and asking him to live up to it. If anything he reinforced the infallibility of Peter's teaching.

---

The Banned said:

---

Is there any pastor of any church that has been so above board he never needed to be corrected? Our modern popes have had to be rebuked. Doesn't mean they weren't pope. Please don't tell me you spent 50 years as a catholic and know all about it if you don't understand the basic tenants of the office of the papacy, what papal infallibility is, etc.

---

M1Buckeye said:

---

Did Jesus and the Holy Spirit forget to tell Paul? Or is it possible that Peter was, in fact, NEVER appointed the head of Jesus's church? I'm going with the latter.

Galatians 2:14
14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

---

jrico2727 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

I've never understood the fascination with Matthew 16:16-18 as a prooftext for Peter.

1. The text itself and the role of Rome have been highly debated throughout Church History. Anybody wanting to debate this has to admit that.

2. The primary challenge is this is the moment in Matthew where Jesus is finally proclaimed as the Christ in Matthew. Yet Rome sees this as the moment when Peter is exalted.

3. We aren't even out of chapter 16, and Jesus calls Peter Satan.

4. I actually think Luke 9:18-20 is the strongest rebuttal. Luke is writing after the fact. He clearly is meeting and interviewing people (likely Mary), and he leaves that part out. As the historian, it seems like it would have been of utmost importance to announce who the new leader of the Church was.


So all that to say, I think Rome likes to see this as "the verse" to prove the Pope nowadays, and if we are honest, it just doesn't work.

---

1. Ok it's been debated, and so have most scriptures that is why you need a body that can provide a definitive answer

2. To be fair Our Lord did speak highly of Simon at the moment: And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

We see St Peter moved by the Holy Spirit to provide the answer that the others given everything else he had been given couldn't. It shows that there was a special charism granted to St. Peter by the father.

3. And he never took away his title or office. We see after the 3 fold rejection of Christ, Peter being forgiven and being commanded to feed my sheep the flock he was given charge to.

4. Something being omitted isn't proof of a rebuttal, and if that is the strongest rebuttal it is pretty week. Luke glances over the narrative of the scene likely due to the fact most of the readers would have been familiar with the narrative from Matthew.

What you are leaving out is St Peter is given the Keys of Heaven. This is singularly the distinction given to him alone. All the other apostles were given the power to loose and bind. The keys are significant as his post in the Kingdom. Following the model of the Davidic Kingdom the chief steward, held the keys which was a sign of the Masters authority which the chief steward will have in the absence of the Master. When paralleled Isaiah. 22:20-22 we see striking similarity to Mark 16.

---

UTExan said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

UTExan said:

---

M1Buckeye said:

---

Did Jesus and the Holy Spirit forget to tell Paul? Or is it possible that Peter was, in fact, NEVER appointed the head of Jesus's church? I'm going with the latter.

Galatians 2:14
14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

---

Don't forget papal infallibility.

---

Papal infallibility has nothing to do with that incident in scripture. St Paul was reminding Peter of his teaching and asking him to live up to it. If anything he reinforced the infallibility of Peter's teaching.

---

So you could do the same to the current pope when he criticizes the US but never dares criticize China?

---

jrico2727 said:

---

UTExan said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

UTExan said:

---

M1Buckeye said:

---

Did Jesus and the Holy Spirit forget to tell Paul? Or is it possible that Peter was, in fact, NEVER appointed the head of Jesus's church? I'm going with the latter.

Galatians 2:14
14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

---

Don't forget papal infallibility.

---

Papal infallibility has nothing to do with that incident in scripture. St Paul was reminding Peter of his teaching and asking him to live up to it. If anything he reinforced the infallibility of Peter's teaching.

---

So you could do the same to the current pope when he criticizes the US but never dares criticize China?

---

Pope Francis has never made an infallible declaration or ever claimed to. I don't often like his handling of things but he may be restraining his comments on China to protect the Christians that live there from retaliation.

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

M1Buckeye said:

---

Did Jesus and the Holy Spirit forget to tell Paul? Or is it possible that Peter was, in fact, NEVER appointed the head of Jesus's church? I'm going with the latter.

Galatians 2:14
14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

---

Because Peter was not above rebuke. He was still a human and could make mistakes. The Pope gets rebuked all the time...but it doesn't change the fact that he is the human head of the Church (from an organizational perspective. Of course Christ is the actual Head of the Church).
In fact, when the Pope writes to other bishops/priests...he doesn't greet them from 'Your Boss'...He states 'Dear brothers in Christ'.
The Pope serves as an administrator of Christs church here on earth. In some sense, its the same as any local church. The Pastor is the the head of the organization but usually with the support of a board. God made us to naturally be inclined toward organizational structures. Thus Christ left us a church in the same vein as the jews had been used to in the past. People understood this which is why except for a few heretics, no one even questioned it until the reformation.
IN the bible, Jesus is talking to and about Peter when he mentions the rock. It makes no sense for Jesus to be speaking about Peter as the rock and then suddenly mid sentence change the object of this statement to mean himself. That was already a given that Christ was the head of the Church. Peter was merely the administrator of his Church on earth.

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

I've never understood the fascination with Matthew 16:16-18 as a prooftext for Peter.

1. The text itself and the role of Rome have been highly debated throughout Church History. Anybody wanting to debate this has to admit that.

2. The primary challenge is this is the moment in Matthew where Jesus is finally proclaimed as the Christ in Matthew. Yet Rome sees this as the moment when Peter is exalted.

3. We aren't even out of chapter 16, and Jesus calls Peter Satan.

4. I actually think Luke 9:18-20 is the strongest rebuttal. Luke is writing after the fact. He clearly is meeting and interviewing people (likely Mary), and he leaves that part out. As the historian, it seems like it would have been of utmost importance to announce who the new leader of the Church was.


So all that to say, I think Rome likes to see this as "the verse" to prove the Pope nowadays, and if we are honest, it just doesn't work.

---

So many misinterpretations here..Where to begin. Peter being the 'rock' upon which Christ built his church has only been debated since the reformation...so not throughout history.
1. Jesus tells Peter "You are Peter (meaning Rock), and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it". Jesus doesn't switch topics main stream to mean "and upon myself I will build my church". Christ knew Peter already understood Christ was the ultimate head. People read their own theology into the text.
3. Jesus rebukes Peter's actions, he did not literally mean Peter is Satan. Not even most protestants believe that.
4. Regarding leaving out what we think should be in each gospel isn't really an argument. The flip side of that would be well, if Jesus wasn't naming Peter to be the head bishop of his Church then why mention and call attention to Simon Peter? In fact, if you read the gospels at face value, they seem to even contradict each other in their narratives.
In the gospels, Jesus never explicitly stated that he is God, but the authors knew it. Jesus revealed this to them as time went on but he never just started out stating it. This is the beauty of how Christ teaches.
I realize it doesn't work for you and many others. But also realize, that provides comfort for you. Because to believe otherwise would force you to reconsider many understandings of scriptural interpretations. Not all, but many. And having been a protestant for a long time, I understand that. Its easy to rationalize it without really genuinely considering the alternative. And this is a big one, because if you accept that Christ established one true church (not invisible) then it could be disruptive in some peoples lives.

---

jrico2727 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

I've never understood the fascination with Matthew 16:16-18 as a prooftext for Peter.

1. The text itself and the role of Rome have been highly debated throughout Church History. Anybody wanting to debate this has to admit that.

2. The primary challenge is this is the moment in Matthew where Jesus is finally proclaimed as the Christ in Matthew. Yet Rome sees this as the moment when Peter is exalted.

3. We aren't even out of chapter 16, and Jesus calls Peter Satan.

4. I actually think Luke 9:18-20 is the strongest rebuttal. Luke is writing after the fact. He clearly is meeting and interviewing people (likely Mary), and he leaves that part out. As the historian, it seems like it would have been of utmost importance to announce who the new leader of the Church was.


So all that to say, I think Rome likes to see this as "the verse" to prove the Pope nowadays, and if we are honest, it just doesn't work.

---

1. Ok it's been debated, and so have most scriptures that is why you need a body that can provide a definitive answer

2. To be fair Our Lord did speak highly of Simon at the moment: And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

We see St Peter moved by the Holy Spirit to provide the answer that the others given everything else he had been given couldn't. It shows that there was a special charism granted to St. Peter by the father.

3. And he never took away his title or office. We see after the 3 fold rejection of Christ, Peter being forgiven and being commanded to feed my sheep the flock he was given charge to.

4. Something being omitted isn't proof of a rebuttal, and if that is the strongest rebuttal it is pretty week. Luke glances over the narrative of the scene likely due to the fact most of the readers would have been familiar with the narrative from Matthew.

What you are leaving out is St Peter is given the Keys of Heaven. This is singularly the distinction given to him alone. All the other apostles were given the power to loose and bind. The keys are significant as his post in the Kingdom. Following the model of the Davidic Kingdom the chief steward, held the keys which was a sign of the Masters authority which the chief steward will have in the absence of the Master. When paralleled Isaiah. 22:20-22 we see striking similarity to Mark 16.

---

These are the typical responses from Rome. Yes and they are less convincing.

Lets take point 1. What body provided the definitive answer? Rome itself declared it. To this day the EOdox do not agree with that claim. So how much weight should we put behind someone self declaring themselves to be something? Typically that's considered a weak argument from authority.

Your point 3 is contingent on your answer to points 1 and 2 and so itself becomes weak. If you don't see strength in Church history or the verse itself, then we have no reason to believe he has a special title or office. So again, not a strong argument.

On point 4, I'm really glad you said it this way. Because that becomes problematic for Rome because we have next to no documentation about a Bishop of Rome in the early church. So if you're arguing that an absence of something isn't sufficient, that's going to create additional challenges for you. The typical Rome apologist response is that they weren't mentioning the Bishop of Rome to protect him, but that as you said would be a weak response.

However, I do think, in this case, it holds more weight that Luke specifically does not mention it. It seems pretty clear he spent time with at least Mary (based on the details he provides) and then the Apostles. For him, of all people, to leave out any proclamation about Peter is interesting because that tends to go against the thoroughness he showed.

---

Why appeal to the EO here when you clearly ignore their teachings elsewhere? And why would them bering wrong in conjunction with you make you right? Since there are many Eastern rites in the Catholic Church it isn't a fully disputed by the East either. Only one Church has the authority to make those claims and it is the one you will reject no matter what I write.

The rest of your points are basically interjection of what isn't there, then speculation on what may be said and more injection of what is absent. But clearly your hypothetical points are incredibly convincing. Was Our Lady even present for the events in Matthew? She isn't mentioned there maybe if you assert that she was Luke's source, it could have been Paul as well, neither were there likely we don't know. Again this is all speculation to fill your narrative. There is more proof that Peter was at Rome than wasn't. Do the EO dispute that since you appeal to their authority when convenient? There are clear records of the order Popes within the Early Church.

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

I've never understood the fascination with Matthew 16:16-18 as a prooftext for Peter.

1. The text itself and the role of Rome have been highly debated throughout Church History. Anybody wanting to debate this has to admit that.

2. The primary challenge is this is the moment in Matthew where Jesus is finally proclaimed as the Christ in Matthew. Yet Rome sees this as the moment when Peter is exalted.

3. We aren't even out of chapter 16, and Jesus calls Peter Satan.

4. I actually think Luke 9:18-20 is the strongest rebuttal. Luke is writing after the fact. He clearly is meeting and interviewing people (likely Mary), and he leaves that part out. As the historian, it seems like it would have been of utmost importance to announce who the new leader of the Church was.


So all that to say, I think Rome likes to see this as "the verse" to prove the Pope nowadays, and if we are honest, it just doesn't work.

---

So many misinterpretations here..Where to begin. Peter being the 'rock' upon which Christ built his church has only been debated since the reformation...so not throughout history.
1. Jesus tells Peter "You are Peter (meaning Rock), and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it". Jesus doesn't switch topics main stream to mean "and upon myself I will build my church". Christ knew Peter already understood Christ was the ultimate head. People read their own theology into the text.
3. Jesus rebukes Peter's actions, he did not literally mean Peter is Satan. Not even most protestants believe that.
4. Regarding leaving out what we think should be in each gospel isn't really an argument. The flip side of that would be well, if Jesus wasn't naming Peter to be the head bishop of his Church then why mention and call attention to Simon Peter? In fact, if you read the gospels at face value, they seem to even contradict each other in their narratives.
In the gospels, Jesus never explicitly stated that he is God, but the authors knew it. Jesus revealed this to them as time went on but he never just started out stating it. This is the beauty of how Christ teaches.
I realize it doesn't work for you and many others. But also realize, that provides comfort for you. Because to believe otherwise would force you to reconsider many understandings of scriptural interpretations. Not all, but many. And having been a protestant for a long time, I understand that. Its easy to rationalize it without really genuinely considering the alternative. And this is a big one, because if you accept that Christ established one true church (not invisible) then it could be disruptive in some peoples lives.

---

Misinterpretation is not the correct word. It is a historical fact that these verses have been disputed as to the reference.

For example: Chrysosotom:
"3. What then saith Christ? "Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas." "Thus since thou hast proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begat thee;" all but saying, "As thou art son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father." Else it were superfluous to say, "Thou art Son of Jonas;" but since he had said, "Son of God," to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begat Him, therefore He added this, "And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;" that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd."

To not acknowledge that this exactly dispute exists is silly because anybody who has looked into this knows this truth.

---

HDeathstar said:

---

just like any organization. Peter was the leader with his belief. Paul was his trusty council providing legal advice. Peter never was or claimed to be a great scholar. He was there to lead people.

---

jrico2727 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

I've never understood the fascination with Matthew 16:16-18 as a prooftext for Peter.

1. The text itself and the role of Rome have been highly debated throughout Church History. Anybody wanting to debate this has to admit that.

2. The primary challenge is this is the moment in Matthew where Jesus is finally proclaimed as the Christ in Matthew. Yet Rome sees this as the moment when Peter is exalted.

3. We aren't even out of chapter 16, and Jesus calls Peter Satan.

4. I actually think Luke 9:18-20 is the strongest rebuttal. Luke is writing after the fact. He clearly is meeting and interviewing people (likely Mary), and he leaves that part out. As the historian, it seems like it would have been of utmost importance to announce who the new leader of the Church was.


So all that to say, I think Rome likes to see this as "the verse" to prove the Pope nowadays, and if we are honest, it just doesn't work.

---

So many misinterpretations here..Where to begin. Peter being the 'rock' upon which Christ built his church has only been debated since the reformation...so not throughout history.
1. Jesus tells Peter "You are Peter (meaning Rock), and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it". Jesus doesn't switch topics main stream to mean "and upon myself I will build my church". Christ knew Peter already understood Christ was the ultimate head. People read their own theology into the text.
3. Jesus rebukes Peter's actions, he did not literally mean Peter is Satan. Not even most protestants believe that.
4. Regarding leaving out what we think should be in each gospel isn't really an argument. The flip side of that would be well, if Jesus wasn't naming Peter to be the head bishop of his Church then why mention and call attention to Simon Peter? In fact, if you read the gospels at face value, they seem to even contradict each other in their narratives.
In the gospels, Jesus never explicitly stated that he is God, but the authors knew it. Jesus revealed this to them as time went on but he never just started out stating it. This is the beauty of how Christ teaches.
I realize it doesn't work for you and many others. But also realize, that provides comfort for you. Because to believe otherwise would force you to reconsider many understandings of scriptural interpretations. Not all, but many. And having been a protestant for a long time, I understand that. Its easy to rationalize it without really genuinely considering the alternative. And this is a big one, because if you accept that Christ established one true church (not invisible) then it could be disruptive in some peoples lives.

---

Misinterpretation is not the correct word. It is a historical fact that these verses have been disputed as to the reference.

For example: Chrysosotom:
"3. What then saith Christ? "Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas." "Thus since thou hast proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begat thee;" all but saying, "As thou art son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father." Else it were superfluous to say, "Thou art Son of Jonas;" but since he had said, "Son of God," to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begat Him, therefore He added this, "And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;" that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd."

To not acknowledge that this exactly dispute exists is silly because anybody who has looked into this knows this truth.

---

I have never disputed this. I am actually ok with interpretation. It doesn't mean it's the sole interpretation. Neither does it dispute the keys which are the real sign of the office and authority.


Peter was a faithful servant of Christ and is highly exalted by Jesus in Heaven. He is one of the all-time great leaders of Jesus's church. However, I don't believe that the scriptures support the claim that Peter was THE leader of the church. Please remember, the Holy Spirit visited and entered into ALL of the original apostles and then into Paul. And they all went their own way to spread the word of Jesus and to build his church.

---