Paul did not write Hebrews; we do not know who did

[Idolater]

In other words, your apparently highly-cherished phrase "Catholic Church" is not something anyone got from the Bible.

Like Trinity.

 

[Idolater]

To what are you referring by your phrase, "Roman Catholicism"?

The Church which Jesus and His Apostles founded.

And, if you are referring to anything by it, why do you choose to so so?

I'd just assume call it the Church. But there are branches now, so the need for qualification and clarification.

 

[Idolater]

Speaking of "qualifying", what's with vacuous jargon like "real presence"? I mean, either something or someone is present in some way or other, or it is/they are not. Why not just say "X is present," rather than inflating verbiage by saying things like "X is really present"?

That's just the term. The Real Presence, meaning, the ontological presence of Christ in the Eucharist, not just His symbolic presence.

 

[Nick M]

I shouldn't have focused on the masculine feminine thing.

You should have focused on the Jewish thing. It is not your church.

 

[Bladerunner]

I'm not sure I follow your sentence structure. Could you at least include a question mark?

Why would you think; if Jesus was going to build his church on a specific foundation (i.e. a rock), this Church would begin in the OT under Moses? The foundation He was speaking of was Himself because of one of His many Titles. ( "a Rock").

Rem, twice before, Israel was given life saving water from Jesus through Moses while in the wilderness. Upon another Rock (Himself) will He build His Church in Acts 2 that contains both Jews and Gentiles.

Hope you find this a little better reading...Have a good evening.

 

[Bladerunner]

Like far too many people here on TOL, you do not listen to a single word that others say.

"This dispensational period" did NOT begin in Acts 1-8... it was NOT given to the twelve.

Everything in Act 2 was 100% Jewish.

correct......Do you have a problem with Jews in the Church along with Gentiles? They will rule the world at one time in the future with Jesus at the helm. Paul did not have a problem with them.

 

[Bladerunner]

I've heard this too, but entertain that even when Peter led gentiles to Christ Acts 10, he was first resistant. He understood at Act 10, after a vision, that gentiles 'could' be Christians, but he resisted take Peter, eat. His focus remained Jewish converts. It wasn't until Paul came to him that he understood the gentiles were fully within the gospel sights, hence Mid Acts theology.

Yes, three thousand Jews were saved into the church of Jesus Christ that first day along with the Holy Spirit being indwelt within their human bodies.This is a mark of His Church (the Indwelling Holy Spirit) and is present in no other church in the Bible.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yeah big time—agreed. But come on—you like Paul—Paul is the king of giant run-on sentences lol.

Paul is at least far more eloquent than you or I ever could be, putting aside the fact that He was directly inspired by God to write what he wrote...

All right. Well, I admit this—I shouldn't have focused on the masculine feminine thing. I realize now that the best way to argue my point is to just say how remarkable it is that Jesus named Peter AFTER HIMSELF,

But He didn't do that.

Peter was Peter long before Matthew 16:18.

now that I can see your whole argument set out plainly. Clearly you've established that Jesus and God is the Rock, is called Rock, as in "my rock". And so therefore, it comes down to whether or not Peter is literally the same word that is used in the rest of Scripture, especially in the Septuagint, being the Greek language context of all the Greek used in all the New Testament—or if it's different.

Clearly morphologically Peter is different from petra. Petra versus petros. Morphology's different.

So therefore this is unsurprising under your claim, which is a point for you. All throughout the Greek Septuagint God is called petra, metaphorically. And then Peter shows up in the New Testament, and he's called petros, not petra. If puts me on the defensive, meaning that it serves as a defeater. A defeater doesn't have to succeed or obtain in order to nonetheless be a defeater, a defeater needs to merely provide an initially highly plausible challenge to the claim in question, and certainly when I'm saying that Jesus is literally calling Peter the very same thing that all throughout the Bible, God is called, and Christ Himself is called by this word rock, in Greek, petra—this term is applied to God and to Jesus, and now Jesus is applying THE SAME WORD to Peter—obv if Peter is SPELLED WRONG this is a defeater against my claim.

Because my claim is pretty big, no? I'm claiming that all your work you've done to pretty clearly show that the word rock is applied to God and Christ, all throughout Scripture, only underscores how deeply SIGNIFICANT it is that Peter's called 'Peter', because Christ is calling him what is only used metaphorically for GOD, up to that point. At least according to the Bible. We don't really know if other things besides God were also called metaphorically rock. That's extra-Biblical information that we don't have. Within the Bible alone (the Septuagint), rock is used metaphorically about God alone, and then, so my claim goes, Jesus calls Peter that very same 'rock'.

So that is a hugely significant claim. Because if Jesus called Peter petra it's all over, right? If He said, you are petra and on this petra, then you'd all be Roman Catholic simpliciter, right? I mean that's how big this point is, no?

I think you're coming at this from the wrong direction.

I think Jesus chose Peter, at least in part, because of his greek name, not becauuse He wanted to build a church upon him, but because He wanted the leader of that church to be symbolic of Him, the one the church is built upon.

The word for stone as in cornerstone is not the same word as rock in English, are they the same in Greek? That's interesting if they are.

No. You're quite literally missing the quarry for the rocks here.

Jesus is the Rock.

He is referred to as a rock throughout scriptures.

The entire Bible is about Christ.

It's not about Peter!

Why are you trying to interpret a verse about Christ as though it was talking about Peter?

You are right. I'm just saying that it's monumentally significant that Jesus calls Peter petra.

Only if that's what He's doing.

But you have to interpret it as though He is, in order to arrive at that conclusion.

In other words, begging the question. Eisegesis.

But the Bible is about Christ, not Peter. Christ is the Rock. Peter just amounts to a pebble compared to Him. You don't build your church upon a pebble.

Because it's relevant. See below. There's a Mr. Rock, and Mrs. Rock, they're called petros and petra, and if ever we're going to name a boy rock, in Greek, we're going to call him Mr. Rock and not Mrs. Rock. I mean if we're going to give him a name. Not if we say, "So-and-so is like a rock", we don't have to change the pronouns, since this metaphor serves a different purpose, we're not comparing So-and-so to a rock and then for some reason referring to So-and-so AS rock from now on. That's a different context. In the context where you're going to CALL someone something, and the word you're going to call them has pronouns, or has an option between Mr. and Mrs., all of us change the name to suit the subject, if our daughter is named Daniel, why aren't we calling her Danielle? How about Paul versus Pauline? Georgina or George? We do this with names, but not with words.

The gender of words in Greek doesn't work the same way that it does in English (or spanish, or latin, etc.).

The word for the Holy Spirit in the NT Greek is neuter, despite the Holy Spirit clearly being male.

Is the Holy Spirit a “He,” “She,” or “It,” male, female, or neuter? | GotQuestions.org

Is the Holy Spirit a “He,” “She,” or “It,” male, female, or neuter? Does the Holy Spirit have a gender?

www.gotquestions.org

Yeah, and I mean, if petros and petra are not the same word—and they're clearly morphologically not the same word, for sure, but I've given a reason why maybe they are nonetheless in their linguistic deep structure, the ontologically same word—if they are not the same word, then you're 100% right and I'm 100% wrong, no other option. I admit it. So it definitely all comes down to whether or not basically, Jesus DID call Peter petra. Did that happen, yes or no? (I'm asking rhetorically.) Morphologically no. petros and petra are not the same, things that are different are not the same. If they were speaking Aramaic however, this serves as a defeater for your view. It doesn't mean the defeater prevails, or succeeds, or obtains, but it does have some initial plausibility.

Cephas is the Hellenized form of the Aramaic word for rock.

The problem is that the Bible is the inspired word of God (at least, in it's original manuscripts).

If the original manuscripts, which have since been lost to time, recorded what Jesus had said, in Aramaic, then you would have a point.

But the problem is that, the best claim you can make is that the original manuscript for this passage was written in Aramaic, which to my knowledge, is an eastern orthodox claim.

But since we don't have the originals, there's not really much evidence for either side to lay claim to which language was the original "inspired" language, but I'm willing to bet it was Greek, rather than Aramaic, and that if it wasn't Greek, there would have been a different Aramaic word used for "petra."

Thus while it is likely that Christ spoke Aramaic, scripture takes prioity, no?

And scripture, what we have, at least, says "Petros" and "petra."

That doesn't negate Jesus's words though, is all. It is a bad look for Peter, for sure, but why would we immediately forget what Jesus just said beforehand? just because of some stumbling that Peter did. Everybody stumbles, and when we stumble, oftentimes we can get back up again, and Peter did too.

Because the Rock is Christ.

... to quote Paul directly.

Christ is the focus, not Peter.

Roman Catholic simpliciter theology of the papacy

From what I understand of the terminology of the words you just used, it sounds like you're begging the question that the Bible implements the pope's office here in this verse.

is nuanced, but I think it could use some updating for the sake of keeping up with linguistics. The chair of Peter is in some sense the throne of David and the seat of Moses, at least in a New Covenant context and or sense.

But not according to the Bible.

Under this view, Jesus is merely giving this throne and seat to Peter for safekeeping.

As if God's throne needs safekeeping...

Not to mention that Christ Himself warned people about His own followers...

Not to mention that no one, let alone Peter, is worthy of Christ's throne but Christ Himself...

Isaiah 22:22 is a precedence or type of what He's doing, or what He's talking about doing. He hasn't done it yet, in Matthew 16, He's saying He's GOING TO do it, but He hasn't yet.

Again, the Bible is about Christ, not Peter. Even Isaiah 22:22.

So Peter stumbling and denying the Lord, and everything else Peter did before the passion and cross, he wasn't the pope yet,

He was never a pope.

Head of the Jerusalem council, yes.
Played a central role with regards to the events surrounding Christ's disciples, yes.

But a pope he was not.

He was one of twelve Apostles who will rule on twelve thrones over the twelve tribes of Israel.

Christ Himself ofc was the reigning monarch,

King of Israel, yes.

But He was not reigning over Israel yet, and will not until He returns at the end.

and He was Really Present still.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

In Isaiah 22:22 the throne of David is ontic, it's ontologically real, even though only what might be called the king's vicar or prime minister, was sitting on it. He was a servant, sitting on the king's throne, while the king was away. The king's throne is real, but the guy on the throne isn't the king, but, he's able to discharge the king's powers. That's his position. Or office. And any number of other synonyms; role, job, responsibility, etc.

I get that this is your view, but it's not supported by Scripture.

That's what Jesus gave to Peter.

But it's not.

He made it clear He was giving it to all His Apostles too—don't worry, I'm not forgetting that.

The Apostles were not popes either.

It had to be that way, since what would happen when Peter dies?

If Peter dies, then something has clearly gone wrong with the plan Jesus had.

Which is exactly what the Bible shows.

Israel REJECTED her Messiah. Christ COULD NOT return and establish His Kingdom, just like He said would happen in Jeremiah 18. And yes, eventually Peter died, because Israel had been cut off for her unbelief, and to this day lives in rebellion against her God.

to Christ's throne?

Christ's throne is still Christ's throne. It has remained unfilled since the last king of Israel sat on it. Christ was supposed to sit in it once He returned, but His return never happened.

Peter was not of royal lineage, ESPECIALLY that of Christ's. He had no right to sit on David's throne anyways.

The surviving Apostles had to decide what to do with Peter's chair. So they all had to possess the seat of Peter—they didn't all OCCUPY it, but they had CUSTODY of it, they were all collectively the custodians or maybe even guardians of it. Peter himself sat on the seat while he was alive, but the seat itself, that office of prime minister or vicar of the king, was given not only to him but to all the Apostles.

There is no ontological "throne" at the moment. There hasn't been since Israel was cut off. If there ever was one, it lost all of its significance at that point in time. In other words, it went from being the throne of David, to just another chair.

When Jesus says He's going to call Simon or Simeon "Rock", He wasn't even so much renaming him as starting to refer to him by his new role, like a captain of a team might be called "Captain" now, instead of his original name. Like your name is JR, if you become the captain of TOL somehow maybe we now call you Captain or Cap. New name, totally different from your original name, but with Captain we know that's a leadership nickname.

This doesn't follow for Peter's name.

Petros means "rock."
Cephas means "rock"

Petros and Cephas are just the same name in different languages, just like "John" and " ジョン", or (to use a better example) "Maple" and "カエデ" ("Kaede"), are the same name in different languages (English and Japanese).

Jesus wasn't renaming Peter.

He was comparing Peter (a rock) to Himself (the Rock).

What we don't know exactly is why Peter was given the name rock, because like you've demonstrated over and over again, rock was only applied in the Bible metaphorically to God and Jesus Himself, before Jesus called Peter rock.

It's because Petros in Greek means rock, just as kepha in Aramaic means rock.

It's literally that simple.

Heck, even "Peter" in English means rock. (consider: "saltpeter," lit. "salt of rock")

Jesus was making an observation of Peter's name, then stating His intentions to build on a bigger rock, playing off of Peter's name, by using a different word entirely, "petra" which is something you would build something on.

But as I said above, if Peter isn't really a new name so much as an indication that Peter's in a new position now, or is serving a new role, then "rock" means this throne and seat, and Peter being called rock means he and he alone is going to be allowed to sit on it, and wield its powers, while Jesus is away, seated at the right hand of the Father, while His enemies are made into His footstool.

It's not a new name, nor a new role.

That rock is what Jesus is going to build His Church on, according to Roman Catholic simpliciter theology of the papacy.

You don't build buildings on "petros."

You build buildings on "petra."

And that is now what I have said too. Agreed?

Not in the last 5 paragraphs you've written that I quote in this post you haven't...

The name of the office is rock, and he calls Peter rock because the Father in Heaven elected the first pope to sit in the chair.

Begging the question. Eisegesis.

There is nothing in scripture (which is all about Christ) to indicate that Peter was being given some sort of new office.

You have to read that idea into the text in order for it to say that.

There's really no "older than the church in Rome" though, since Romans were among those who heard Peter's first sermon in Acts 2. See Acts 2:10

Acts 2 starts with the Twelve (11 original Disciples and the newly added Matthias) "in one place," "in Jerusalem."

They were not in Rome.

Just because there were "visitors from Rome" present doesn't mean the "Roman Church" is the oldest.

Based on your logic, the Parthians have more of a claim to being the oldest church than does Rome, simply because there were Parthians present there.

 

[Lon]

It's usually mocking, but again, that's OK. Goes with the territory. This is Theology Online.



So isn't it interesting that in one sacrament, baptism, water is used, which symbolizes blood, and then in another, which you believe symbolizes blood also, but it's wine instead?

One assumption from another, baptism was an outward sign of an inner salvation.

It doesn't seem like you ever really bought in to it, no?

"Back" in? No.

 

[Right Divider]

correct......Do you have a problem with Jews in the Church along with Gentiles?

In the body of Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek.

Gal 3:27-28 (AKJV/PCE)​

(3:27) For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (3:28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.​

They will rule the world at one time in the future with Jesus at the helm.

Indeed, Israel will be restored to their former glory with the Lord Jesus Christ as their king. The gentile nations that are saved will bless Israel and be blessed in return.

Paul did not have a problem with them.

Neither do I. I simply understand God's timeline and plans. I do not try to mash them into confusion.

 

[Right Divider]

The Church which Jesus and His Apostles founded.

I'd just assume call it the Church. But there are branches now, so the need for qualification and clarification.

You can always tell when someone has an indoctrinated belief system when they feel the need to capitalize the words "church" or "gospel".

The church which is His body was founded later and the twelve were not involved in that founding.

1Cor 3:10 (AKJV/PCE)​

(3:10) According 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. ​

 

[Derf]

Why would you think; if Jesus was going to build his church on a specific foundation (i.e. a rock), this Church would begin in the OT under Moses? The foundation He was speaking of was Himself because of one of His many Titles. ( "a Rock").

Again, that suggests that He is continuing to build, not a future build. I'm surely not saying Jesus had nothing to do with the people of Israel in the Old Testament.

Rem, twice before, Israel was given life saving water from Jesus through Moses while in the wilderness. Upon another Rock (Himself) will He build His Church in Acts 2 that contains both Jews and Gentiles.

Indeed. And the people were all baptized and ate together of spiritual food and drank together of spiritual drink.
1 Corinthians 10:2-4 KJV — And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

But you see who they were baptized unto? Moses. And the Rock (Christ) did not precede them, as required for a foundation, but followed them.

Hope you find this a little better reading...Have a good evening.

Thanks, that helped a lot!

 

[Derf]

Yes, it does.

Or, rather, that it stays 100% Hebraic.

No, it doesn't.

That they be called, once more, the children of Israel...



Gentiles have always been able to access God through Israel. Nothing had changed other than that there was a New Covenant.

Something was going to change, but how it changed was TBD before Paul, at least from the apostles' vantage point.

Supra.

There was still a distinction between Jew and Gentile, and all new believers were Jews, or Proselytes.

And that old covenant wasn't a perfect one. That's why a new one was needed. In the New Covenant, God had to show them, through Paul and through Peter, that Gentiles could come in without circumcision. But first the Jews were supposed to convert. They didn't, at least not in very great numbers, so the gospel had to go out a different way, bypassing the (mostly) unfaithful children of Israel, which, of course, made them no longer children of promise, but children of the bond-woman.

They didn't remain Gentiles.

This is NOT how Paul's gospel works.

It's not? @Right Divider keeps saying there's no Gentiles in the BOC.