About the Sabbath,which is Saturday,God said ,if you love me,keep my commands or commandments,Sunday was chanced by the pagan church ,the Catholic ,which changed gods words. Your not suppose to changed the word. You have deseved many,just as when you die you go to heaven,if so,you can't believe his coming again
@wallypaige I know of no Pagan Church, but I know that Saturday Sabbath is part of the Old covenant with the Jews, was not binding on Gentile Christians, and Sunday was the day of rest in the Catholic Church since the resurrection. I'll post some quotes from the Early "Catholic" Church Fathers. 1 of 3
(Ignatius fellow worker of the Apostle John for 4 decades)
"Those who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 8 ).
"The apostles further appointed: On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the holy scriptures, and the oblation [sacrifice of the Mass], because on the first day of the week our Lord rose from the place of the dead, and on the first day of the week he arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week he ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of heaven"
Sorry,but the dead sea scrolls say different,the catholic's,changed the word of god. They are not the one's Peter was talking too,there were many Chrtistain group there at that time period.Satan has been changing God word since Adam . This is also what Constantine did also,he wanted to stop the christians ,so he took a group ,that also had Pagan ways ,and then let them run there Church. They have changed Gods words,right off the start.It has been all about the Sabbeth,every since Moses,
First, please give me the Dead Sea passage that defends your statement.
Second, please show me where I can find the writings of the so called true believers of the Early Church. I mean some of their writings must have survived, we have the writings of all the other Christian groups not associated with the Catholic one, so there must be some Christians from the so called true church, yes? I'd Love to read them, and that would convert me on the spot, son!!
@wallypaige Yes, it's been all about the Sabbath, Saturday is given to the Jews as part of the Old Covenant, and Sunday was given to the Christians under the NEW COVENANT.
(Romans 6:14) "For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace."
the Truth of Peter is his full confession of faith in Jesus as Lord. In no way is Peter the froundation of the church. Did Peter die on the cross, rise from the dead, forgive sins of people??? NO that would be Jesus. Peter points to Jesus like the blessed Mary does. So get off the idea that Peter is a "rock" of any church. Jesus is the rock of foundation for the church. People that confess, like Peter, that Jesus is God's Son and Lord of their life and the second part of the church. Gospel
@MRGV7373 I understand your point, and all Christians believe and know Jesus is the foundation of the Church. When Jesus changed Simons name it was for 2 reasons, 1) He was giving Peter a Primacy over the other Apostles. and 2) When Jesus said "On this Rock I will build my Church" it was also a Prophecy that Christ's Church, which holds the successor of St Peter, was built over the tomb of St Peter. We hold firm to this truth!
@hockeyrulesus Simon name change follows what God does to other pivotal people in history, Abram to Abraham, Saul to Paul ... A new name is needed to fit the new person and his new roll. Peter is the rock in that Simon, the loudmouth fisherman changes into the Rock and leader of faith by the HS in Act 1-9. Primacy is a myth since even Peter does not use it, see act 15, James, Jesus brother make the decision with Peter's help. The confession is what builds the church not people
@MRGV7373 1) Catholic's agree, that the word "Rock" as more then one meaning in the Gospels, as does the word "Church". Church could mean 'the body of believers' (Eph.5:23) or 'a visible house of God' (1Tim 3:15). In (Matt16:18), there is no separation of Simon's new name, and the building a Church statement, they flow together.
2) Peter's Primacy, is the same as the Pope today, he isn't a dictator but a President, and has the last say on a matter, as in (Acts15:7-19).
@MRGV7373 James was a son of Alphaeus, (Mark 15:40) who is also known as James the Lesser, who was probably a cousin of Christ. Aramaic's equivalent of "brother" means both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. This can be seen in (Gen. 29:15), Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban, and (Gen14:14), Lot is called Abraham's "brother", he was actually Abraham's nephew. James was a relative, but the earliest writings say he was a cousin. Amen!
@hockeyrulesus Peter does have the keys and only he kept them. they were never passed on, they are addressed to Peter and no one else was given them in time or place. See Romans 10 - the act of confessing Jesus is the "rock" that the church is built on. No one confessing Peter will enter the Kingdom. Read Romans 10, John 20:29. It has always been the teaching of all Christians that the first step to Conversion is belief and then public confession of Jesus, then baptism.
@MRGV7373 "Peter does have the keys and only he kept them"
1. The earliest Christians disagree with you, therefore, the Catholic Church disagrees with you. Find me one piece of historical evidence where this is denied... Even the Orthodox, who deny the supremacy of the pope, have no choice but to acknowledge that the concept of "FIRST among Equals" dates back to Apostollic Times.
2. Why is the verse Mt 16.19 in the Bible? If Peter hold the keys "simply" to himself, we learn nothing out of it
@hockeyrulesus Now that you understand this teaching, you will understand the RCC teaching that the Pope is Jesus on earth is a major problem in christian history. It is the main reason why the RCC split with the eastern Catholic church.The Pope is a Godly Man and that is it. Not Jesus in any shape or form. The RCC needs leadership and I am fine with that but to make him infallible and holder of the keys is just not scriptural or historically correct. Early church din not teach
@MRGV7373 Being that Jesus founded a Church, and left this Church with His authority in Matt 16:18, the Bishop of Rome represents Christ, not that he is Christ. Big difference. Christ said " He that hears you hears Me" [Lk 10:16]. Infallibility is only in regards to doctrine, and has only been used 4 times in 2000+ yrs. Infallibility doesn't mean the Pope doesn't make mistakes or sin, as Protestants think it means. It means the Holy Spirit will protect the Church from doctrinal error.
@MRGV7373 The Great Schism of the Eastern Church is more complicated then that. The problem was, the Church was cut off with the Eastern Church by the Muslims in 800AD, and the Church had some councils without the other Eastern Patriarchs for the first time in history. The east said these councils were not valid, even though they believe in the Pope's Primacy. The Eastern Church has always believe in the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. I'll send you some quotes.
@MRGV7373 "the RCC teaching that the Pope is Jesus on earth is a major problem in christian history"
The real (sic) problem is that the Catholic Church never taught that.
"but to make him infallible and holder of the keys"
Infaillable doesn't mean perfect, omniscient, pure, righteous, etc... It means that mean the pope speaks EX CATHEDRA, what he says is true and every member of the Church has to listen to it.
@Gazdo01 Peter called Peter Rock but Jesus is the foundation on the corner stone of the church. Period. Peter is one of the "rocks" of the that start the foundation of the early church. So Peter is not the "rock" as in Pope or ever lasting Pope and only person to follow "rock" Matt 18:16 is about the confession of faith. The church of Christ is based on the confession of Jesus as Lord and Savior. See Romans 10:9 - The confession is the rock, not Peter. What if Peter died??
@MRGV7373 I've heard this explanation before, but you didn't answer Gazdo01 question. Why did Jesus, change Simon's name to Cephas. Definition: a boy's name of Hebrew origin, and the meaning of Cephas is "rock". If the confession is the Rock, why did Jesus immediately after the confession call Simon Caphas (Rock)? This name, by the way, does not have the masculine and famine versions, as the Greek translation petros (masculine) and the petra (feminine). It simply means ROCK.
@hockeyrulesus Why did the Greek version pick the feminine version in Matt 18:16? In Aramaic it is only Rock is correct. The feminine is a play on words that Jesus says that Peter is small and the confession is the Rock in Matt 18:16. When God changes people name, a major change was going to happen to that person. Abram, Israel, Saul to Paul. The person was going to have a dramatic change and a new name was needed to fit the change. Simon the loudmouth fisherman to Peter, Rock
@MRGV7373 The word petros for Peter in the Greek is in the masculine gender and the word petra for the rock is in the feminine gender. This is exactly what the RCC tries to explain to Protestants. When the Gospels were translated to Greek, the Masculine Petros was used, which in a technical use means small stone. They never would have used the feminine for a man's name. The feminine means massive stone.
@MRGV7373 If that was the case, Jesus never would have changed Simon's name into rock. Period. The play on word in intentional: TU es PETRUS et super hanc PETRAM. You are Simon and on THIS rock... Ok, I totally agree with you. But since Simon's name has been specifically changed to rock, and Jesus used the same word twice, litterally "You are rock and on this rock", then I say there is no reason to doubt the primacy of Peter.
"What if Peter died??" Good question. Answer: apostollic sucession
@Gazdo01 Jesus called Peter "Rock" and Peter is one form of Rock. Peter did witness and verified the Jews, and Gentiles became Christians. Peter did hold the "keys" as well. Peter was not to be the corner stone of the Church or the Rock of the church - this is Jesus' only. If Peter was to be the cornerstone of the church, Peter would have had to die for our sins, be the lamb of God and rose from the dead. Peter witness these events and was key to moving forward after Jesus death.
@MRGV7373 If the Protestant interpretation was to hold water, you would have to show me were it says, (and after Jesus changed Simon's name to Rock, Jesus pointed to Himself and said 'and on this Rock I will build my Church'). In order for this Protestant interpretation to work, we have to say there are two Rock's Jesus is speaking of 1)Simon's new name and 2) The Confession. I don't see a separation. I've heard one preacher say I have to imagine Jesus pointing to himself. Imaginary scripture?
@MRGV7373 What does it mean to "hold the keys". And what's the meaning of giving a PERSON these Keys? Didn't you hear what G.K. Chesterton have to say on the matter?
" If Peter was to be the cornerstone of the church, Peter would have had to die for our sins, be the lamb of God and rose from the dead"
You really don't understand what "pope" means, do you? We never claimed the pope was a new Christ...
He is a witness to the Truth, a living voice of authority, so the Church doesn't err.
@MRGV7373 Finally, did you watch the videos I've sent you? Because I was kind of expecting an answer. You deny the authority of the pope... Care to explain why the early Christians didn't? Why is it that by the year 80-90 AD, the Church of Corinth contacted the POPE (St Clement) to help them resolve a theological issue? They could have consulted John the Apostles, who was still alive...
Why did they write to the SUCCESSOR of Peter, which they considered to be the Head of the Church?
@MRGV7373 According to Jesus, who's the voice of authority? The Church. (Mt 18.17) You can argue that your local Church is that voice of authority, and that this authority comes from the concensus of its members...
The problem with that is that this is SUBJECTIVE truth. What happens when two "churches" disagree with each other?? To what "higher" Church would they have to appeal?
You my friend have NO WAY of determining doctrinal truths about theological issues. That's only possible with a pope
@MRGV7373 Mt 18.18 That is ONLY possible with COMMUNION. That's why we say there are many Churches among the wider CATHOLIC Church, but they are all in COMMUNION with the pope.
If Jesus gives authority to his Apostles to "bind and loose", but they themselves disagree with each other, we have a big problem. Two opposites can't be true at the same time.
Either they don't have the authority, so Jesus is a liar... but we reject that. Or the ones who disagree are heretics and out the the Church...
Jesus could have said to Peter that Peter was the rock at anytime of the Gospels. Jesus Points to Peter's confession as the Rock that would build the church. Is it not the confession by humans that Jesus is God Son and Savior of the believer. All the Apostles would die and what kept the church Going? The confession of People that Jesus is Lord. The Rock is the confession, Peter is just a small rock in the history of salvation. Peter is a Gem but the confession of Jesus as Lord is key.
@MRGV7373 Yes, Jesus could've changed Simon's name to Peter at anytime in the Gospels, but if you watched the video, you'd have seen the reason this site was chosen. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom and given the task of Shepherding His flock, as well.
Matthew was written in Aramaic—we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea—but it was translated into Greek early on. In any case the Aramaic original is lost (as are all the originals of the NT books) The argument that Jesus called Simon "Petros" "little rock", is not the case, but the word rock in Aramaic is only one word, that is "Kepha". When translated, they had a chose of calling Kepha the feminine "Petra" or the masculine "Petros". Fact is the early church agrees with me.
"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).
"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).
" We do this by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority -- that is, the faithful everywhere." ( Against Heresies Book III, Chapter 3)
@hockeyrulesus Yes Peter was given the Keys and the task of Shepherding the flock by Jesus. But that is a fair cry from being the Vicar of Christ or the Pope - Papa- to all the world. Peter is a great leader of the early church and a great witness to Jesus. The Papalcy is a power grab of political importance around 300 AD and later. But as to Peter the Rock, Peter confession is what make the church - confessing Jesus as Lord - not Peter. Believer in Jesus will always be, Not Peter - He died
@hockeyrulesus I did watch the video - and I understand the rock word play - and I Peter's confession is the key to Christian belief and becoming God's children. Not the man Peter. Peter is not the foundation of the church, Jesus is the one and only rock. Peter is in no way the foundation of the church - Jesus is, Peter's confession is the foundation of the church in that the way to enter the church is by confessing your belief in Jesus as God's Son as your lord and savior. Peter's confession
none of this really matters. The roman catholic church likes to worship everyone around Jesus....Peter, his mother Mary , and so on. These were all regular people like you and I. Mary was blessed to be chosen as the mother of Jesus, but apparently she too was a sinner and in need of a saviour. Was Peter the 1st pope? Not hardly. In Paul's letter to the Romans, he did not say anything about Peter being in Rome, a huge insult if Peter had been there.
@hockeyrulesus I partially agree. Was (Simon) Peter chosen to take leadership after Jesus? Yes, but he is far from the only one. Paul was the other half of the supreme leadership if you call it that. Was Peter a Pope... not exactly. Was he the leader of the Church in Rome and the "founder" of the Patriarchate of Rome, sure, you might say that. Were there others, yes. Andrew in Constantinople for one, James in Jerusalem, and others. Was Peter chosen to lead all Christians, no.
@Gjergji311 Glad you partially agree. Mt 16:18- upon this rock Mt 16:19- Keys to bind and loose Jn 21:17- given Christ's flock as chief shepherd Mk 16:7 angel sent to peter to announce risen christ Lk 24:34- risen Christ first appeared to peter Acts 2:13-26- Peter heads meeting to elect Matthias Acts 2:14- led Apostles in preaching on Penticost Acts 2:41- recieved first converts Acts 3:6-7- Performed first miracle Acts 5:1-11- inflicted first punishment Acts 15:7- led first council in Jerusalem
@hockeyrulesus indeed...HOWEVER, since you have looked into it, you will see in Acts that Paul actually rebukes Peter when the latter refuses the eat dinner with a group of non-Jewish Christians. In addition, every Church that Paul founds (Corinth et al) is organized according to Paul's rules, is led by a person that Paul chooses, and refers to Paul whenever a problem happens (that's why we have all those letters from him in the Bible). Was he usually given the seat of honor, yes. For 2 reasons:
@hockeyrulesus 1) He was (according to tradition) the oldest of the apostles, so he was obviously given the most honor.
2) He always had a special position in Jesus' fellowship, though John is usually referred to as the apostle "that Jesus loved."
With that being said, if he were to be the first (and only) Papal/Patriarchal authority, after seeing Paul gathering authority left and right, Andrew, James and others having their own Patriarchates, it took the people in Rome 5 centuries to figure
@hockeyrulesus ... out that all the others were not supposed to be there and that true Christians (which were curiously referred to as "Roman" not "Orthodox") were supposed to revere the Saints that founded those Patriarchates, yet not accept their legacy?
@Gjergji311 Peter's Name occurs 195 times in the bible, more then all the rest put together.
He was always named first when the apostles were listed (Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13) -- sometimes it was only "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32);
John ran ahead of Peter to the tomb but upon arriving he stopped and did not go in. He waited and let Peter go in. (Jn 20:4)
@Gjergji311 Andrew in Constantiniople? Do you know that Constantinople wasn't established until the time of Constantine in the 4th Century? And when did Jesus tell Paul to feed His sheep or guide His sheep like He told Peter or that Jesus would built His church on Paul? Nowhere. Jesus gave Peter the Keys and No one else.
@hockeyrulesus St. Peter's tomb was discovered in Jerusalem and there is no historical proof that he was ever in Rome. Christ was talking metaphorically about building his ministry and Jesus was the cornerstone. If you read Matthew 7:24 you'll see what I mean. Also, he gave the same authority to all the apostles. Look at Matthew 18:18; John 20:23. There is no evidence Peter was a pope, but for the sake of argument, even if he was; then the next question is why assume his church is Catholicism?
St. Peter was not a pope. Greek translations show Peter and the Rock being two very different meanings, the first being masculine and the last feminine. Peter is 'petros' in Greek and Rock is 'petra'. In classical Greek, the distinction between these is well known. Petra means a rock while petros means a piece of rock or a stone. So, was Jesus saying that St. Peter will build a church with him being the supreme leader of the Church, or was Jesus referring to something completely different?
@jamezbond78 There is proof......Read the Early Church Fathers. These are the disciples of the Apostles and I have a few videos on them, if you're interested. Linus is mentioned, but so is Clement the 4th Pope, by Paul mentions him in (Phil 4:3) " And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life."
@hockeyrulesus First of all, why should we accept proof from Catholic sources? The verse in Phil 4:3 just mentions "also Clement" but there is no verse which connects this Clement with leading an important role as a pople. Clement was a very common name during the 1st and 2nd centuries and could have been anybody. Why would the apostles just mention these names once or twice and not leave more testimony in the New Testament?
About the Sabbath,which is Saturday,God said ,if you love me,keep my commands or commandments,Sunday was chanced by the pagan church ,the Catholic ,which changed gods words. Your not suppose to changed the word. You have deseved many,just as when you die you go to heaven,if so,you can't believe his coming again
wallypaige 2 weeks ago
@wallypaige I know of no Pagan Church, but I know that Saturday Sabbath is part of the Old covenant with the Jews, was not binding on Gentile Christians, and Sunday was the day of rest in the Catholic Church since the resurrection. I'll post some quotes from the Early "Catholic" Church Fathers. 1 of 3
hockeyrulesus 2 weeks ago
@wallypaige 2 of 3
Ignatius of Antioch, 108 AD
(Ignatius fellow worker of the Apostle John for 4 decades)
"Those who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 8 ).
hockeyrulesus 2 weeks ago
@wallypaige 3 of 3
The Didascalia A.D. 225
"The apostles further appointed: On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the holy scriptures, and the oblation [sacrifice of the Mass], because on the first day of the week our Lord rose from the place of the dead, and on the first day of the week he arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week he ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of heaven"
hockeyrulesus 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
buddy85442 1 month ago
@buddy85442 Correct. As I said, Christ gave Peter a chance to profess Christ 3 times, after Peter denied Christ 3 times.
hockeyrulesus 1 month ago
Sorry,but the dead sea scrolls say different,the catholic's,changed the word of god. They are not the one's Peter was talking too,there were many Chrtistain group there at that time period.Satan has been changing God word since Adam . This is also what Constantine did also,he wanted to stop the christians ,so he took a group ,that also had Pagan ways ,and then let them run there Church. They have changed Gods words,right off the start.It has been all about the Sabbeth,every since Moses,
wallypaige 1 month ago
@wallypaige
First, please give me the Dead Sea passage that defends your statement.
Second, please show me where I can find the writings of the so called true believers of the Early Church. I mean some of their writings must have survived, we have the writings of all the other Christian groups not associated with the Catholic one, so there must be some Christians from the so called true church, yes? I'd Love to read them, and that would convert me on the spot, son!!
hockeyrulesus 1 month ago
@wallypaige Yes, it's been all about the Sabbath, Saturday is given to the Jews as part of the Old Covenant, and Sunday was given to the Christians under the NEW COVENANT.
(Romans 6:14) "For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace."
hockeyrulesus 1 month ago
the Truth of Peter is his full confession of faith in Jesus as Lord. In no way is Peter the froundation of the church. Did Peter die on the cross, rise from the dead, forgive sins of people??? NO that would be Jesus. Peter points to Jesus like the blessed Mary does. So get off the idea that Peter is a "rock" of any church. Jesus is the rock of foundation for the church. People that confess, like Peter, that Jesus is God's Son and Lord of their life and the second part of the church. Gospel
MRGV7373 10 months ago
@MRGV7373 I understand your point, and all Christians believe and know Jesus is the foundation of the Church. When Jesus changed Simons name it was for 2 reasons, 1) He was giving Peter a Primacy over the other Apostles. and 2) When Jesus said "On this Rock I will build my Church" it was also a Prophecy that Christ's Church, which holds the successor of St Peter, was built over the tomb of St Peter. We hold firm to this truth!
hockeyrulesus 10 months ago
@hockeyrulesus Simon name change follows what God does to other pivotal people in history, Abram to Abraham, Saul to Paul ... A new name is needed to fit the new person and his new roll. Peter is the rock in that Simon, the loudmouth fisherman changes into the Rock and leader of faith by the HS in Act 1-9. Primacy is a myth since even Peter does not use it, see act 15, James, Jesus brother make the decision with Peter's help. The confession is what builds the church not people
MRGV7373 1 month ago
@MRGV7373 1) Catholic's agree, that the word "Rock" as more then one meaning in the Gospels, as does the word "Church". Church could mean 'the body of believers' (Eph.5:23) or 'a visible house of God' (1Tim 3:15). In (Matt16:18), there is no separation of Simon's new name, and the building a Church statement, they flow together.
2) Peter's Primacy, is the same as the Pope today, he isn't a dictator but a President, and has the last say on a matter, as in (Acts15:7-19).
hockeyrulesus 1 month ago
@MRGV7373 James was a son of Alphaeus, (Mark 15:40) who is also known as James the Lesser, who was probably a cousin of Christ. Aramaic's equivalent of "brother" means both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. This can be seen in (Gen. 29:15), Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban, and (Gen14:14), Lot is called Abraham's "brother", he was actually Abraham's nephew. James was a relative, but the earliest writings say he was a cousin. Amen!
hockeyrulesus 1 month ago
@hockeyrulesus Peter does have the keys and only he kept them. they were never passed on, they are addressed to Peter and no one else was given them in time or place. See Romans 10 - the act of confessing Jesus is the "rock" that the church is built on. No one confessing Peter will enter the Kingdom. Read Romans 10, John 20:29. It has always been the teaching of all Christians that the first step to Conversion is belief and then public confession of Jesus, then baptism.
MRGV7373 1 month ago
@MRGV7373 "Peter does have the keys and only he kept them"
1. The earliest Christians disagree with you, therefore, the Catholic Church disagrees with you. Find me one piece of historical evidence where this is denied... Even the Orthodox, who deny the supremacy of the pope, have no choice but to acknowledge that the concept of "FIRST among Equals" dates back to Apostollic Times.
2. Why is the verse Mt 16.19 in the Bible? If Peter hold the keys "simply" to himself, we learn nothing out of it
Gazdo01 1 month ago
@hockeyrulesus Now that you understand this teaching, you will understand the RCC teaching that the Pope is Jesus on earth is a major problem in christian history. It is the main reason why the RCC split with the eastern Catholic church.The Pope is a Godly Man and that is it. Not Jesus in any shape or form. The RCC needs leadership and I am fine with that but to make him infallible and holder of the keys is just not scriptural or historically correct. Early church din not teach
MRGV7373 1 month ago
@MRGV7373 Being that Jesus founded a Church, and left this Church with His authority in Matt 16:18, the Bishop of Rome represents Christ, not that he is Christ. Big difference. Christ said " He that hears you hears Me" [Lk 10:16]. Infallibility is only in regards to doctrine, and has only been used 4 times in 2000+ yrs. Infallibility doesn't mean the Pope doesn't make mistakes or sin, as Protestants think it means. It means the Holy Spirit will protect the Church from doctrinal error.
hockeyrulesus 1 month ago
@MRGV7373 The Great Schism of the Eastern Church is more complicated then that. The problem was, the Church was cut off with the Eastern Church by the Muslims in 800AD, and the Church had some councils without the other Eastern Patriarchs for the first time in history. The east said these councils were not valid, even though they believe in the Pope's Primacy. The Eastern Church has always believe in the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. I'll send you some quotes.
hockeyrulesus 1 month ago
@MRGV7373 "the RCC teaching that the Pope is Jesus on earth is a major problem in christian history"
The real (sic) problem is that the Catholic Church never taught that.
"but to make him infallible and holder of the keys"
Infaillable doesn't mean perfect, omniscient, pure, righteous, etc... It means that mean the pope speaks EX CATHEDRA, what he says is true and every member of the Church has to listen to it.
"Roma locuta, cause finita"
Gazdo01 1 month ago
@MRGV7373 If Peter's not the rock, care to explain why Jesus changed SIMON's name into ROCK? (Jn 1.42)
These might help:
/watch?v=RWYwBDqFsuE
/watch?v=utoG7lg-Yss
/watch?v=qij6Y873Dl8
Gazdo01 1 month ago
@Gazdo01 Peter called Peter Rock but Jesus is the foundation on the corner stone of the church. Period. Peter is one of the "rocks" of the that start the foundation of the early church. So Peter is not the "rock" as in Pope or ever lasting Pope and only person to follow "rock" Matt 18:16 is about the confession of faith. The church of Christ is based on the confession of Jesus as Lord and Savior. See Romans 10:9 - The confession is the rock, not Peter. What if Peter died??
MRGV7373 1 month ago
@MRGV7373 I've heard this explanation before, but you didn't answer Gazdo01 question. Why did Jesus, change Simon's name to Cephas. Definition: a boy's name of Hebrew origin, and the meaning of Cephas is "rock". If the confession is the Rock, why did Jesus immediately after the confession call Simon Caphas (Rock)? This name, by the way, does not have the masculine and famine versions, as the Greek translation petros (masculine) and the petra (feminine). It simply means ROCK.
hockeyrulesus 1 month ago
@hockeyrulesus Why did the Greek version pick the feminine version in Matt 18:16? In Aramaic it is only Rock is correct. The feminine is a play on words that Jesus says that Peter is small and the confession is the Rock in Matt 18:16. When God changes people name, a major change was going to happen to that person. Abram, Israel, Saul to Paul. The person was going to have a dramatic change and a new name was needed to fit the change. Simon the loudmouth fisherman to Peter, Rock
MRGV7373 1 month ago
@MRGV7373 The word petros for Peter in the Greek is in the masculine gender and the word petra for the rock is in the feminine gender. This is exactly what the RCC tries to explain to Protestants. When the Gospels were translated to Greek, the Masculine Petros was used, which in a technical use means small stone. They never would have used the feminine for a man's name. The feminine means massive stone.
hockeyrulesus 1 month ago
@MRGV7373 If that was the case, Jesus never would have changed Simon's name into rock. Period. The play on word in intentional: TU es PETRUS et super hanc PETRAM. You are Simon and on THIS rock... Ok, I totally agree with you. But since Simon's name has been specifically changed to rock, and Jesus used the same word twice, litterally "You are rock and on this rock", then I say there is no reason to doubt the primacy of Peter.
"What if Peter died??" Good question. Answer: apostollic sucession
Gazdo01 1 month ago
@Gazdo01 Jesus called Peter "Rock" and Peter is one form of Rock. Peter did witness and verified the Jews, and Gentiles became Christians. Peter did hold the "keys" as well. Peter was not to be the corner stone of the Church or the Rock of the church - this is Jesus' only. If Peter was to be the cornerstone of the church, Peter would have had to die for our sins, be the lamb of God and rose from the dead. Peter witness these events and was key to moving forward after Jesus death.
MRGV7373 1 month ago
@MRGV7373 If the Protestant interpretation was to hold water, you would have to show me were it says, (and after Jesus changed Simon's name to Rock, Jesus pointed to Himself and said 'and on this Rock I will build my Church'). In order for this Protestant interpretation to work, we have to say there are two Rock's Jesus is speaking of 1)Simon's new name and 2) The Confession. I don't see a separation. I've heard one preacher say I have to imagine Jesus pointing to himself. Imaginary scripture?
hockeyrulesus 1 month ago
@MRGV7373 What does it mean to "hold the keys". And what's the meaning of giving a PERSON these Keys? Didn't you hear what G.K. Chesterton have to say on the matter?
" If Peter was to be the cornerstone of the church, Peter would have had to die for our sins, be the lamb of God and rose from the dead"
You really don't understand what "pope" means, do you? We never claimed the pope was a new Christ...
He is a witness to the Truth, a living voice of authority, so the Church doesn't err.
Gazdo01 1 month ago
@MRGV7373 Finally, did you watch the videos I've sent you? Because I was kind of expecting an answer. You deny the authority of the pope... Care to explain why the early Christians didn't? Why is it that by the year 80-90 AD, the Church of Corinth contacted the POPE (St Clement) to help them resolve a theological issue? They could have consulted John the Apostles, who was still alive...
Why did they write to the SUCCESSOR of Peter, which they considered to be the Head of the Church?
Gazdo01 1 month ago
@MRGV7373 According to Jesus, who's the voice of authority? The Church. (Mt 18.17) You can argue that your local Church is that voice of authority, and that this authority comes from the concensus of its members...
The problem with that is that this is SUBJECTIVE truth. What happens when two "churches" disagree with each other?? To what "higher" Church would they have to appeal?
You my friend have NO WAY of determining doctrinal truths about theological issues. That's only possible with a pope
Gazdo01 1 month ago
@MRGV7373 Mt 18.18 That is ONLY possible with COMMUNION. That's why we say there are many Churches among the wider CATHOLIC Church, but they are all in COMMUNION with the pope.
If Jesus gives authority to his Apostles to "bind and loose", but they themselves disagree with each other, we have a big problem. Two opposites can't be true at the same time.
Either they don't have the authority, so Jesus is a liar... but we reject that. Or the ones who disagree are heretics and out the the Church...
Gazdo01 1 month ago
Jesus could have said to Peter that Peter was the rock at anytime of the Gospels. Jesus Points to Peter's confession as the Rock that would build the church. Is it not the confession by humans that Jesus is God Son and Savior of the believer. All the Apostles would die and what kept the church Going? The confession of People that Jesus is Lord. The Rock is the confession, Peter is just a small rock in the history of salvation. Peter is a Gem but the confession of Jesus as Lord is key.
MRGV7373 10 months ago
@MRGV7373 Yes, Jesus could've changed Simon's name to Peter at anytime in the Gospels, but if you watched the video, you'd have seen the reason this site was chosen. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom and given the task of Shepherding His flock, as well.
hockeyrulesus 10 months ago
Matthew was written in Aramaic—we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea—but it was translated into Greek early on. In any case the Aramaic original is lost (as are all the originals of the NT books) The argument that Jesus called Simon "Petros" "little rock", is not the case, but the word rock in Aramaic is only one word, that is "Kepha". When translated, they had a chose of calling Kepha the feminine "Petra" or the masculine "Petros". Fact is the early church agrees with me.
hockeyrulesus 10 months ago
Clement of Alexandria
"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).
hockeyrulesus 10 months ago
Letter of Clement to James
"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
hockeyrulesus 10 months ago
Tertullian
"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
hockeyrulesus 10 months ago
Tertullian
"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).
hockeyrulesus 10 months ago
St Irenaeus of Lyon, 195AD
" We do this by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority -- that is, the faithful everywhere." ( Against Heresies Book III, Chapter 3)
hockeyrulesus 10 months ago
@hockeyrulesus Yes Peter was given the Keys and the task of Shepherding the flock by Jesus. But that is a fair cry from being the Vicar of Christ or the Pope - Papa- to all the world. Peter is a great leader of the early church and a great witness to Jesus. The Papalcy is a power grab of political importance around 300 AD and later. But as to Peter the Rock, Peter confession is what make the church - confessing Jesus as Lord - not Peter. Believer in Jesus will always be, Not Peter - He died
MRGV7373 10 months ago
@hockeyrulesus I did watch the video - and I understand the rock word play - and I Peter's confession is the key to Christian belief and becoming God's children. Not the man Peter. Peter is not the foundation of the church, Jesus is the one and only rock. Peter is in no way the foundation of the church - Jesus is, Peter's confession is the foundation of the church in that the way to enter the church is by confessing your belief in Jesus as God's Son as your lord and savior. Peter's confession
MRGV7373 10 months ago
none of this really matters. The roman catholic church likes to worship everyone around Jesus....Peter, his mother Mary , and so on. These were all regular people like you and I. Mary was blessed to be chosen as the mother of Jesus, but apparently she too was a sinner and in need of a saviour. Was Peter the 1st pope? Not hardly. In Paul's letter to the Romans, he did not say anything about Peter being in Rome, a huge insult if Peter had been there.
NewDirection4us 1 year ago
@NewDirection4us The Catholic Church Worships no one but God. You're confusing Prayer for Intersession, with Worship.
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
Thank you for the video.God Bless.
"To one who has faith no explanation is necessary.To one without faith no explanation is possible."
cramirez11 1 year ago
whose names exists from saint peter the fisrt pope?
rurmundo 1 year ago
@hockeyrulesus I partially agree. Was (Simon) Peter chosen to take leadership after Jesus? Yes, but he is far from the only one. Paul was the other half of the supreme leadership if you call it that. Was Peter a Pope... not exactly. Was he the leader of the Church in Rome and the "founder" of the Patriarchate of Rome, sure, you might say that. Were there others, yes. Andrew in Constantinople for one, James in Jerusalem, and others. Was Peter chosen to lead all Christians, no.
Gjergji311 1 year ago
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
@hockeyrulesus indeed...HOWEVER, since you have looked into it, you will see in Acts that Paul actually rebukes Peter when the latter refuses the eat dinner with a group of non-Jewish Christians. In addition, every Church that Paul founds (Corinth et al) is organized according to Paul's rules, is led by a person that Paul chooses, and refers to Paul whenever a problem happens (that's why we have all those letters from him in the Bible). Was he usually given the seat of honor, yes. For 2 reasons:
Gjergji311 1 year ago
@hockeyrulesus 1) He was (according to tradition) the oldest of the apostles, so he was obviously given the most honor.
2) He always had a special position in Jesus' fellowship, though John is usually referred to as the apostle "that Jesus loved."
With that being said, if he were to be the first (and only) Papal/Patriarchal authority, after seeing Paul gathering authority left and right, Andrew, James and others having their own Patriarchates, it took the people in Rome 5 centuries to figure
Gjergji311 1 year ago
@hockeyrulesus ... out that all the others were not supposed to be there and that true Christians (which were curiously referred to as "Roman" not "Orthodox") were supposed to revere the Saints that founded those Patriarchates, yet not accept their legacy?
Gjergji311 1 year ago
@Gjergji311 Peter's Name occurs 195 times in the bible, more then all the rest put together.
He was always named first when the apostles were listed (Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13) -- sometimes it was only "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32);
John ran ahead of Peter to the tomb but upon arriving he stopped and did not go in. He waited and let Peter go in. (Jn 20:4)
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
@Gjergji311 Andrew in Constantiniople? Do you know that Constantinople wasn't established until the time of Constantine in the 4th Century? And when did Jesus tell Paul to feed His sheep or guide His sheep like He told Peter or that Jesus would built His church on Paul? Nowhere. Jesus gave Peter the Keys and No one else.
axisanch3z 1 year ago
@hockeyrulesus St. Peter's tomb was discovered in Jerusalem and there is no historical proof that he was ever in Rome. Christ was talking metaphorically about building his ministry and Jesus was the cornerstone. If you read Matthew 7:24 you'll see what I mean. Also, he gave the same authority to all the apostles. Look at Matthew 18:18; John 20:23. There is no evidence Peter was a pope, but for the sake of argument, even if he was; then the next question is why assume his church is Catholicism?
jamezbond78 1 year ago
St. Peter was not a pope. Greek translations show Peter and the Rock being two very different meanings, the first being masculine and the last feminine. Peter is 'petros' in Greek and Rock is 'petra'. In classical Greek, the distinction between these is well known. Petra means a rock while petros means a piece of rock or a stone. So, was Jesus saying that St. Peter will build a church with him being the supreme leader of the Church, or was Jesus referring to something completely different?
jamezbond78 1 year ago
@jamezbond78 There is proof......Read the Early Church Fathers. These are the disciples of the Apostles and I have a few videos on them, if you're interested. Linus is mentioned, but so is Clement the 4th Pope, by Paul mentions him in (Phil 4:3) " And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life."
hockeyrulesus 1 year ago
@hockeyrulesus First of all, why should we accept proof from Catholic sources? The verse in Phil 4:3 just mentions "also Clement" but there is no verse which connects this Clement with leading an important role as a pople. Clement was a very common name during the 1st and 2nd centuries and could have been anybody. Why would the apostles just mention these names once or twice and not leave more testimony in the New Testament?
jamezbond78 1 year ago