A look at Matthew 16 vs dogma

When was Peter in Rome and When did Paul write the letter? Its probably an obvious answer.

 

In your estimation? - Right... I addressed this in post #95

Your answer?

Your guess?

It just seems?

I would like to remind your that the exception does NOT prove the rule. There is, however, tons of Early Church writings to back up the fact.

IMO? Where is the historical evidence that "...the hierarchy of the church of Rome had defected from the faith by the time of the Edict of Milan (AD312) when Constantine and Licinius made a marriage of christendom and Paganism"?

Oh - I see. After the apostles died there were no longer any sinners left... Again - were it not for the Crusades, we would be bowing to Allah and speaking some flavor of farsi right now.

I believe that honor belongs to Nero and Diocletian...

Oh - come on... You know as well as I that the Protestants butchered and murdered Catholics.

Well, that would be YOUr opinion - history doesn't back you up as I've repeatedly shown.


Peace!

 

Just for the record Billy, I love catholics, it's the leadership that are the objects of my criticism.

True, many, just as the laity, are ignrorant of the true nature of the church they serve. Not only that but IMO many of the rank and file Catholics are true believers but in spite of the church and not because of their church.

Check out the sites I posted, please do more research concerning the church of Rome as "the Holy Roman Empire".

Peace to you as well my brother.

HankD

 

Just a historical note the Holy Roman Empire was primarily German.

 

Admittedly and the first of whose emporers were crowned by the pope.

HankD

 

Granted.

However, if Peter did not show up until after Paul wrote his epistle then this would mean that someone else evangelized Rome.

HankD

 

No such Armaic Gospel of Matthew or any other gospel has ever been found. The Holy Spirit chose Greek to give the Gospel to the early Christians not Armamic. The Greek provided the nuances necessary to convey precisely the truth and distinctions Christ had in mind in Matthew 16:17-19.

If Christ wanted us to beleive that Peter was the foundation rock of the Church he could have just said, "You are Peter and upon YOU I will build my Church." Peter did not understand him to mean that, as Peter uses the feminine "petra" in 1 Peter.2:8 in application to Christ in a building context where the church is made up of "living stones" but Christ is the corner stone of the foundation that the Jews stumbled over.

1 Pet. 2:4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Furthermore, Paul identifies Christ NOT PETER as the "foundation" upon which the church is built confirming Peter's applicaton of "petra" to Christ rather than to himself:

I Cor. 3:10According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11 ¶ For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.


Furthermore, in 1 Peter 5:1,3 Peter denies any elevated position above any other elder:

The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder.....
3 Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.


Peter did not build the church at Rome. There is no record of Him building it. When Paul wrote and greeted the church at Rome, there was no greeting to Peter. Moreover, he explicitly states he wanted to come to Rome to have "fruit" there but He would not go where he had to build upon some other man's foundation.

Romans 15:20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation:


If Peter had built the church, Paul could not have said that. If Peter was there Paul could not have failed to salute him. Moreover, Paul distinctly tells the Galatians that Peter claimed to be an apostle of the circumcision and Paul to the circumcision.

And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. - Gal. 2:9


Paul explicitly tells the Church at Rome that they were under his apostleship as an apostle to the Gentiles:

Rom. 15:15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God,
16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
17 ¶ I have therefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in those things which pertain to God.
18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,
19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

The truth is, that the church at Rome was probably built by those who were converted on the day of Pentecost under the preaching of Peter (Acts 2:10). Also, some who were converted under Paul were influential in further building the church up (Rom. 15) as Paul names many there which were his converts. In Paul's prison epistles when he was at Rome he makes no mention of Peter at all which is inexplicable if Peter was there as he says that "no man stood with me." If Peter was there then he became an apostate and did not stand with Paul:

2 Tim. 4:16 ¶ At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.

 

So also Paul:

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock (petras) that followed them:
and that Rock (petra) was Christ.​

HankD​

 

So here, petra and petras are used in reference to Christ. Interesting...

Peace!

 

More than interesting as it completely removes Peter from any consideration as the rock (petra) upon which the Church is built or from being the source of eternal life (petras) as Christ is both the ROCK (petras) or source from which eternal life comes - THUS GOD - and He is the ROCK "petra" upon which the Church is built - being the confession by Peter that salvation is found in Christ alone.

How is Peter characteristically a "rock" then? He is representative of all who make that confession and who are taken and built into a holy temple of LIVING STONES that profess Jesus is the source of Salvation which is the FOUNDATION upon which the churches of Christ ar built.

Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Peter learned his lesson of humility and would not even ascribe his name to those stones but described them by another Greek term "lithoi". However, the analogy the church "built up" on Christ as the "petra" in 1 Pet. 2:8 out of materials characterized as "living stones" comes directly from Christ's building analogy in Matthew 16:17-19.

 

BTW just because an Aramic text of Matthew hasn't been found doesn't mean one was writen. And it was Matthews disciples who would have compiled Matthew into Greek. Now that is out of the way.

The Catholic could easily say "Jesus did say that" even using the Greek Petros. You are petros (pebble) and upon this petra (rock) I will build my church. It likens back to Jesus discourse on faith. You are pebble and upon this rock - ie Peter currently of little pressense and self worth (pebble) and on this rock (the material with which to make Peter great in the community of believers) I will build my church.

 

An argument from silence is no argument at all.

 

What do you mean "now that is out of the way"? You admitted to having nothing to begin with as proof and based upon nothing you simply went on to prove nothing. All you proved is that you are endowed with BLIND FAITH.

Your second statement is nothing. Peter did not take it this analogy that way. Indeed, he took it the very opposite. He characterized every church member as "living stones" or the kind of material God uses to "build up" a spiritual house with "petra" Christ as the foundation. Where did Peter get this analogy?? Matthew 16:17-19 is a building analogy:

1. There is a builder - "I WILL build"
2. There is a building "my church"
3. There is a foundation to build upon "upon this rock"

However, where is the material to build this church out of that Peter calls "living stones"? In this context, Peter answered IN BEHALF OF ALL the disciples as they all previously confessed this. Jesus responded not by calling him "Peter" but by first calling him "Simon bar jona" (v. 17). He is addressed as "Peter" in the building context as his name as well as his response is CHARACTERISTIC of the very materials that Peter himself described being used in the building of the church - "living stones."

 

I wouldn't say nothing. The fact that uncommonly Matthew translation of the OT doesn't coincide with the LXX contrary to all the other apostles is significant in that its very likely and independent translation directly from Aramaic quotes. Hey. So its also reasoned you like jumping to conclusions.

 

Secondly ask yourself when 1 and 2nd Peter where written? He's not referring to his conversation with the Lord. He's referrencing the OT in discussion of Jesus you combined two things not ment to be combined. And lastly Why is Peter always listed 1st among the list of Apostles?

 

There is a lot of confusion here.
First, The gospel of Matthew, written in Greek by Matthew is not a translation. That is an assumption you are making. It is the original spoken by the Holy Spirit directly to Matthew. There is no translation involved. It is the only MSS that is inspired. It alone is the inspired Word of God. God promised to preserve his word after that.
Secondly, the LXX, written about 250 B.C. is a Greek Translation of the OT, and a very poor one at that. It is not that reliable, and it is certainly not the inspired Word of God. It is simply a translation.
Third, what was common was the Gospel of Matthew in Greek. That is what was circulated. The entire NT was written in Greek. It was called Koine Greek, or the Greek of the common people. It was written in Greek because all could understand it--both Gentile and Jew. The Scriptures were not exclusively for the Jews, not even Matthew. Greek was the language of the world, the universal spoken language of the day. That is why we find the NT written in Greek. Over 5,000 existing MSS on the NT today and they are written primarily in Greek.

 

The fact is when you compare the OT quotes in Matthew with the Other NT writers what we find is that the other writers coincide with LXX translations of the OT. Thus showing Matthew quotes of the OT are an independent translation of what the apostles were using. The question then is why is this. Either 1) Matthew wrote the gospel to the JEWS and HEBREWS in their second language Greek and translated OT scripture without using a source text. 2) Matthew wrote the gospel in Aramaic and his disciples compiled the work together for their Greek Audiences and translated directely from the Aramaic use rather than old hebrew into Greek from the OT not using source LXX. Get it?

 

I think most of us get it. Just us Bible-believers, those born of God, don't accept liberal theology because it strays or denies the Word of God.

 

1 Peter 2:5 is directly applied to the church and he makes this statement in the Old Testament context of the use of Christ first as a LIVING STONE Himself (v. 4). Thus the "living stones" in verse 5 are simply chips off the old rock (just like Peter - Mt. 16:17). He follows this analogy of the church made up of Living stones" by an Old Testament passage that refers to Christ as the "chief corner stone." In a building project EVERYTHING is lined up on the "cornerstone" and Peter is not that stone - Christ is. In the building analogy in Matthew 16:18 EVERYTHING is built upon that foundation stone and it is not Peter - it is Peter's profession of Christ.

In I Peter 2:7-8 he changes the analogy to that of the "stumbling stone" and "rock" (petra) of offence and that is not Peter but it is the profession that Peter made in Matthew 16:16 which the Jews stumbled over but Peter did not. Peter's analogies of Christ first as a "living stone" (v. 4) and then as the "chief cornerstone" (v. 6) followed as a "stumbling stone" and "rock of offence" fits perfectly with the analogy of church members as "lively stones" built up a spiritual temple ON CHRIST. The analogy of the house of God being made up of "lively stones" is not taken from the Old Testament and have no other reference other than Matthew 16:18 and the anarthous construct of the name "Peter" as the representative spokesman for the rest of the church members.

 

Exactly my point I previously made. YOu have a very low view of Scripture. What DHK shared holds to the inerrancy of Scripture for botht he Old and NT Scriptures.