Peter’s person

[donadams]

Peter is the rock chosen by God!

Peter’s person or Peter’s confession?

Acts 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

God chose Peter!

Matt 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

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.

Is Peter’s person blessed or Peter’s confession?
Does Peter’s confession or Peter’s person receive divine revelation?

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.

When God changes a man’s name abram to Abraham or Jacob to Israel or Simon to Peter it signifies an office!

Is Peter’s person or Peter’s confession who’s name is changed?

And! Peter and rock are the same!

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.

Does Christ gives the keys to Peter’s person or Peter’s confession?

Does Christ give the power to bind and loose to Peter’s person or to a confession?

Did the Father send Christ or a confession of Christ?

Jesus Christ is the rock of salvation!

Peter is the rock that the church is built on by Christ alone!

Christ sends Peter not his confession!

Lk 22:32
Jesus prays for Peter alone

Jn 21:17 Peter entrusted with the flock or church

Only Peter and His successors have
Jurisdictional authority from Christ to govern the church!

Already acting in the person of Christ even acting as intermediary!

It is Jesus Christ who identifies peter with himself!

Matt 17:24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the houser, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?

26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

It is Jesus Christ who identifies peter with himself! Matt 17:27

Jesus Christ gives the keys of the kingdom to peter matt 16:18-19 making him prime minister applying Isa 22:21-22 to peter

It’s Christ who does this

Why is the name of peter even mentioned?

Why does Christ change Peter’s name, God changing a persons name like Abram to Abraham or Jacob to Israel always signifies a mission or ministry!

Why does Christ give him the keys of jurisdictional authority that the prime minister holds under the king to administer the kingdom? Isa 22:21-22

How do you govern the church and administer the kingdom with a confession?

How do you give jurisdictional authority to a confession? (Keys of the kingdom)

How do you give a confession the power to bind and loose?


also have to explain
Isa 22:21-22 jurisdictional authority of the keys and called father
Matt 28:19 go teach baptize
Jn 20:21-23 same mission power and authority as christ
Eph 2:20 church built on the apostles
Matt 23 successors of Moses have the jurisdictional authority and the power to bind and loose which Christ says must be obeyed, then taken from them matt 21:43 given to Peter and the apostles and their successors

Lk 22:29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: (plural Peter and his successors)
32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.



Applies only to Peter as “prince of the apostles”!

Peter and his successors are the Leader of the apostles and the head of the church until Christ returns!

First and chief apostle!

Matt 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter,

Lk 22:29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: (plural Peter and his successors)
32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

Lk 22:32 Christ prayed for Peter!

Peter is head of the church on earth in the place of Christ until His return!

Isa 22:21-22 21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.

22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Matt 16:19 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.

Matt 23:1 power and authority of the kingdom known in the keys and binding and loosing, Matt 21:43 kingdom shall be taken from you given to another who will bear fruit. (Peter the apostles in holy church Lk 22:29)

Matt 17:27 Jesus identified peter with himself.

Matt 16:17 Peter alone received revelation from the Father

Lk 22:32 Peter to strengthen his brethren (the apostles)

Jn 21:17 feed my sheep

Peter exercises his authority over the apostles and the church!

Acts 1:15
Acts 3:4
Acts 5:5 5:10
Acts 10:44
Acts 15:7

ONLY TO PETER CHRIST SAID: THOU ART PETER AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILT MY CHURCH, AND THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT!Matt 16:18

Peter is the prime minister, father, and head of the church on earth until Christ returns Isa 22:21-22

Seat of peter remains Until Christ returns
Matt 28:19-20


Matthew 5:14
Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.


Rom 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

4 important questions:

1) How do you govern the church and administer the kingdom with a confession?

2) How do you give jurisdictional authority to a confession? (Keys of the kingdom)

3) How do you give a confession the power to bind and loose?

4) why did Christ give the keys to Peter (and only to Peter) keys of jurisdictional authority. Isa 22:21-22 why even bother to mention Peter if he is not involved?

Explain Jn 20:21 Peter and the apostles and their successors have the same mission, ministry, power, and authority as Christ! “As the father sent me, so I send you”!

Matt 28:19 christ communicates his authority to peter and the apostles to teach all nations, baptize all disciples!
Jn 20:21-23 apostles even have authority to forgive sins
Eph 2:20 church built on the apostles
Matt 23 the authority and power of the successors of Moses required to be obeyed are taken from them and given to Peter and the apostles

Jn 21:17
Peter commanded to Feed my sheep:






2 Tim 3: 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
(Protestants, fundamentalists, etc.)

Christ and His church are one!
God cannot reveal error and the church cannot teach error!

True Christians cannot listen to the errors of excommunicated heretics like luther, calvin, etc. but we listen faithfully to Christ, in the bosom of holy mother church, the only ark of salvation!






Questions about Jesus, Peter, and the keys!

How can Jesus be the builder and the church being built?

If Christ is the rock:

1) Why does Christ even mention Peter?

2) Why did Christ change Peter’s name? (Indicating an office or ministry, similar to Abram & Jacob)

3) Why did Christ give the keys to Peter? (and only to Peter) keys of jurisdictional authority. (Refer to Isa 22:21-22)

4) Why does Christ identify peter with himself! Matt 17:27
Where is the coin for the other apostles?

5) Why is Peter commanded to feed Christ’s sheep (the other apostles) and the lambs? (The people)
Jn 21:17


Christ is the Head of the Church. The Pope sits on His seat (position) on earth not in place of Christ as it's Head, but as an indication of his primacy among men living, his honor as governor (for Christ) and his jurisdiction, as the leader of the Church in this realm. Governing a realm, being given a jurisdiction by the King is not replacing the King.



Matt 16:17-19 Peter’s person or Peter’s confession?

How did christ build the church in Himself, eph 2:20 says on the apostles?

did Christ give the keys of jurisdictional authority to govern his church and administer his kingdom to a confession? Or to the person of the apostle Peter?

Did Christ give the apostolic authority to bind and loose to a confession? Or to the apostle Peter?

did a confession miraculously catch a fish with a coin in its mouth to pay the temple tax for both Christ and Peter identifying them as one in Matt 17:27 Or did the person of the apostle Peter?

 

[donadams]

Did a confession stand up in acts 1 and quote the Old Testament and appoint Mathias as an apostle? Or did the person of the apostle Peter?

Did a confession give the first sermon in acts 2? Or did the person of the apostle Peter?

did a man in acts 3:6 receive a miracle thru a confession? Or did the person of the apostle Peter?

Did a man in acts 5:5 fall dead at the feet of a confession? Or to the person of the apostle Peter?

did a confession preach the necessity of baptismal regeneration in acts 2:38-39 and 1 pet 3:20-21?
Or did the person of the apostle Peter?







Rev. 1:18; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1 - Jesus' "keys" undeniably represent authority. By using the word "keys," Jesus gives Peter authority on earth over the new Davidic kingdom, and this was not seriously questioned by anyone until the Protestant revolt 1,500 years later after Peter’s investiture.

Revelation 3:7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: `The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens. (see Isa. 22:22, key, shut/open)

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 16:19 - whatever Peter binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven / when the Prime Minister to the King opens, no one shuts. This "binding and loosing" authority allows the keeper of the keys to establish "halakah," or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves. Jesus sanctifies the Seat of Moses, who had binding and loosing authority, and transfers it to Peter, the Apostles and their successors.




Verses refer to Peter’s person not Peter’s confession:

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, (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 (Peter) 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.

Vs 18 Jesus changes Simon’s name to Peter. (Peter)
Vs 19 Jesus gives the keys (jurisdictional authority over the kingdom) to Peter. (Peter)
Vs Jesus give Peter the power to bind and loose. (Peter)

Matt 17:27 Jesus identify’s Peter with himself.

Lk 22:32
Jesus prays for Peter alone.

Jn 21:17 Peter entrusted with the flock (church)

Eph 2:20 church built on Peter and the apostles not on Christ or on Peter’s confession of Christ!!!

Peter, Peter, Peter!!!

Not a confession but a person!

 

[Josiah]

@donadams


View this:

+ This video is 10 minutes long (too long for some to take in) but it shares the view of this text by every Christian, church and denomination except The Roman Catholic Church. It's the view of all the Orthodox Churches, the Lutheran and Anglican Churches, etc. ALL but the RCC.

+ It shows that the RCC spin on this actually VIOLATES the text. It actually is founded on IGNORING the grammar of the text. The words are actually stating the OPPOSITE of how the RCC (egotistically) spins it.




.

 

[Josiah]

@donadams



The following comes from a Greek Orthodox .... Not a Protestant.
Please view the first video in Post #1 first.



The Roman Church directs us to Matthew 16:18 as "evidence" for its remarkable and highly controversal foundational claim for itself. Let's consider what needs to be proven for this to have any credibility...


1) The promise of Matt 16:18 has reference specifically to the individual person of "Peter."


Response: Matthew 16:18 may not even refer to Peter. "We can see that 'Petros' is not the "petra' on which Jesus will build his church. In 7:24, which Matthew quotes here, the 'petra' consists of Jesus' teaching and the faith that Jesus is the Savior and Lord. 'This rock' no longer poses the problem that 'this' is ill suits an address to Peter in which he is the rock. For that meaning the text would have read more naturally 'on you.' Instead, the demonstrative echoes 7:24; i.e., 'this rock' echoes 'these my words.' Only Matthew put the demonstrative with Jesus words, which the rock stood for in the following parable (7:24-27). His reusing it in 16:18 points away from Peter to those same words as the foundation of the church…Matthew's Jesus will build only on the firm bedrock of his law (5:19-20; 28:19).


2) The promise of Matt 16:18 has "exclusive" reference to Peter.


Response: There a the power-sharing arrangement in Matthew 18:17-18 and John 20:23. The Roman Church itself is confused on this, insisting Jesus gave all this to PETER and then that He didn't then He did and then He didn't.



3) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to a Petrine "office."

Response: The conception of a Petrine office is borrowed from Roman bureaucratic categories (officium) and read back into this verse. The original promise is indexed to the person of Peter, says the Roman Church. There is no textual assertion or implication whatsoever to the effect. Again, the Roman Church is confused: Was the promise given to a man or to an office?




4) This office is "perpetual"


Response: In 16:18, perpetuity is attributed to the church, and not to a church office or a given Apostle.



5) Peter resided in "Rome"
.
Response: there is some evidence that Peter paid a visit to Rome (1 Peter 5:13). There is some evidence that Peter also paid a visit to Corinth (1 Cor 1:12; 9:5). Peter was in MANY locations (most we can better confirm than Rome). Why just the bishop of Rome?



6) Peter was the "bishop" of Rome

Response: Even if Peter ever was in Rome, he was there as an Apostle. An Apostle is not a bishop. Apostleship is a vocation, not an office, analogous to the prophetic calling. Or, if you prefer, it’s an extraordinary rather than ordinary office. Peter was equally and fully an Apostle everywhere - not especially or solely in Rome. Peter was a bishop nowhere, not ever.



7) Peter was the "first" bishop of Rome

Response: The original Church of Rome was probably organized by Messianic Jews like Priscilla and Aquilla (Acts 18:2; Romans 16:3). It wasn’t founded by Peter. When Paul is in Rome, he makes no mention of Peter at all - as an Apostle there, as a bishop there, as a pastor there, as the Pope, or as "there" at all. In any capacity. Nor does he indicate that Peter founded the congregation there or that the ministers in that city had any special role or function or rank.



8) There was only "one" bishop at a time

Response: There is no historic confirmation of this in the Early Church.



9) Peter was not a bishop "anywhere else."


Response: Peter presided over the Diocese of Pontus-Bithynia (1 Peter 1:1), but there's no evidence he was a BISHOP there, either. Peter was an Apostle - and this was universal, not limited to one small geographical area.



10) Peter "ordained" a successor


Response: There is no textual support for the proposition that Peter ordained any successors. Apostles, bishops, priests or otherwise. There's no contemporary historical support for this, either. This is entirely made up.



11) This ceremony "transferred" his official prerogatives to a successor.


Response: The Roman popes are elected to papal office, they are not ordained to papal office. There is no separate or special sacrament of papal orders as over against priestly orders. If Peter ordained a candidate, that would just make him a pastor, not an Apostle or Pope.



12) The succession has remained "unbroken" up to the present day.


Response: There is no straight-line deduction from Matt 16:18 to the papacy of the Roman Church. What we have is, at best, a long chain of possible inferences, much "connecting the dots of assumptions." It only takes one broken link anywhere up or down the line to destroy the argument and the whole "house of cards" to come tumbling down. Also, the "list" of the bishops in Rome is retroactively created and simply is a list of bishops, except for the first name on the list who of course was not a bishop at all (see all the points above). And of course, there often was more than one "Pope" at a time, each claiming to be the one in direct succession to Peter and with their own retroactively created "list."







.

 

[Josiah]

@donadams

See posts 3 and 4.

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.

The Roman Catholic Church itself alone (uniquely) claims that Peter is the rock on which Christianity is built. This however requires that the text be ignored. Because "Peter" in Greek is masculine whereas "rock" in the Greek here is feminine. You may know that male and female are not the same. The "rock" here clearly refers back to his confession.

For the text to even have the POSSIBILITY of meaning what the unique RCC alone claims it does, "Peter" and "rock" would need to be in the same gender. And it would make FAR more sense for Jesus to say, "And upon YOU I will build by church." But He does not. Refers not to a personal pronoun but to something else, "this." So we must decide what THIS (not what WHO). The word for "confession" or "proclaimation" in Greek is feminine, as is the "this" here. Peter was not a woman disguising himself as a man.




.

 

[Josiah]

@donadams


Read, view and consider posts 3, 4 and 5 first.....


The individual RCC uniquely claims that PETER (that one individual man) was given the "keys" and HE ALONE could forgive sins. Well, and all the bishops that follow Peter (who was never a bishop anywhere) in Rome or wherever it works for the RCC to claim that.

But this too is against Scripture. For example, in Matthew 18:18, Jesus is addressing NOT just Peter, NOT just Apostles, NOT just priests ordained in the RCC, He is addressing "disciples" (Matthew 18:1). And He says to THEM (the disciples - not just Peter, not just Apostles, not just bishops of Rome, not just bishops anywhere), the exact same words as in Matthew 16:19, "Whatever YOU bind... loose...." DISCIPLES. Believers. Not just Peter. Not just Apostles. Not just bishops (of which Peter was never one). Not just priests ordained uniquely in the individual RCC. Whatever "authority" Jesus may have meant in Matthew 16:18 (and that word never appears there), it was also given to all believers (using the exact, identical same words).

Rev. 1:18; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1 - Jesus' "keys" undeniably represent authority.

Matthew 16:18 shows Jesus gave nothing to Peter.

Matthew 18:1 and 18 shows that Jesus gave this "authority" to bind and loose to all the disciples.




.

 

[Albion]

Peter is the rock chosen by God!

Chosen to do what? That is the real question here. We all know that Jesus said something to Peter, but what does it mean? You will probably say it means that Peter would become the first bishop of some city and that every leader of that church thereafter would be the sole ruler of Christ's church on Earth. But that is purely a denominational fiction. During the first three centuries, the idea of a Pope was absent, and then when the bishops of Rome started claiming such authority, it split the church.

Peter’s person or Peter’s confession?

Acts 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Peter was one of the most important of the Twelve, that's true. But at the same time, it doesn't mean that he was a Pope-type figure or that Christ had intended for there to be such a figure.

I've already explained how Peter was the one who accounted for the first big wave of (thousands of) converts to the new church, and this is apparently the assignment Jesus had referred to. You just reported on the same event (Pentecost), but that doesn't mean he was the head of the Church everywhere.

In addition, what did the church itself believe in the first century and for centuries to come? The answer: No Pope, no religious oversight for the whole church by the bishop of Rome. No agreement on who had been the leader of the Apostles. Some said Peter, but others said Peter and Paul jointly. Others said Peter, Paul, and James. The theory you want us to believe wasn't believed by the Apostolic Church, that's for certain.

 

[donadams]

@donadams


View this:

+ This video is 10 minutes long (too long for some to take in) but it shares the view of this text by every Christian, church and denomination except The Roman Catholic Church. It's the view of all the Orthodox Churches, the Lutheran and Anglican Churches, etc. ALL but the RCC.

+ It shows that the RCC spin on this actually VIOLATES the text. It actually is founded on IGNORING the grammar of the text. The words are actually stating the OPPOSITE of how the RCC (egotistically) spins it.




.

I watched it, seems like a nice priest
Still don’t answer the question
Mosaic covenant precedent
The mosaic covenant was eatables on the person of Moses
It’s true the new covenant is established on Christ as the mediator but remember Christ ascended to heaven and named Peter and the apostles to govern the church till he returns
Only Peter received the “keys” that belong to Christ Isa 22:21-22
Thanks

 

[Josiah]

but remember Christ ascended to heaven and named Peter and the apostles to govern the church till he returns

Where?

Christ never mentioned The Catholic Church - before or after His ascension.

Christ never gave Peter anything as we see in Matthew 16:18. And the authority to bind and loose sins He gave to all Christians as noted in Matthew 18:18.

Only Peter received the “keys” that belong to Christ Isa 22:21-22

Did you read Isaiah 22:21-22? IF you did, then you know that Isaiah never mentioned Peter or The Catholic Church. For anything. About anything.


See post 3, 4 and 5.



.

 

[Albion]

Only Peter received the “keys” that belong to Christ Isa 22:21-22
Thanks

He did receive keys. BUT they are nothing like the Key that was given in Isa 22, and that one was for a different position.

In other words, that claim is worthless for several reasons.

We have already agreed that Christ had big plans for Peter...and what was intended has been explained, too.

None of it relates to the Papal position that the RCC attempts to "prove" Christ initiated; and as has also been noted before, the church itself didn't promote any of your "proofs" until centuries later, after it had become the dominant religion in the Roman Empire.

None of what you've been presenting to us as part of your case was accepted by the Apostolic Church, yet your case rests upon it being "what was" from the beginning of Church history.

Now that a series of "stock" claims made by the Roman Catholic Church for itself have been recounted by you...and rebutted with accompanying explanations...

It seems like it is your turn to offer some response to what we've explained to you. Other than merely repeating the original claims, that is.