Where does the Pope get his authority?

[Marymog]

You've lost me, BOL. What has this quote got to do with the Papacy? An admonishment to Smyrnean Christians to follow their bishop and their clergy tells us nothing about the status of the Bishop of Rome in A.D. 107. (By the way, A.D. 107 is the Second century, not the First.)

Redfan,

I agree with you Redfan. That letter does not speak of Papacy. But if you take into consideration what else Ignatius wrote, his writings come together to show he believes in Papal authority over The Church AND bishops who are over their local jurisdictions.

to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Ignatius Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

I look forward to anything @BreadOfLife has to add to this.

 

[Titus]

Does that make it false?

Good morning RedFan!!!!
That's not the point I was making.
I dont believe the word translated in Aramaic is false no more than the word translated in English makes it false.

The point is God preserved the new testament in Greek manuscripts.
Therefore God APPROVES of Matthew 16:18-19, read this way,
- and I also say to you that you are Peter(Greek petros)
and on the rock(Greek petra) I will build My church
and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.

BreadofLife and other Catholics demand Matthew 16:18-19 be read in Aramaic.
Why? Because they deny the Greek as being the correct interpretation to,
Peter(petros ) and rock(petra)

If they accept the Greek their doctrine on Peter being the Head apostle of the church is shown to be misinterpretation of the Scriptures.

You can quote it in any language you want and it does not disprove what the Greek says.

Matthew itself refutes the catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19.
Catholics claim Peter is the Head of the church in
Matthew 16:18-19.
That contradicts Matthew 28:18-19!!!
Matthew 28:18-19,
- ALL AUTHORITY has been given to Me in heaven AND ON EARTH

Matthew states Jesus has ALL AUTHORITY on earth
Catholics claim in the same book it teaches Peter has the Authority on earth over the church.

Peter cannot be appointed the authority on earth as Head of the church in Matthew. When in Matthew Jesus says He is the AUTHORITY ON EARTH.

Too many Heads on ONE Body!!!

Colossians 1:18,
- and Jesus is the Head of the body, the church who is the firstborn of the dead that in ALL THINGS He may have the PREEMINENCE

The Greek proves Jesus built His church on the confession that is a Revelation from God spoken from Peter's mouth.
Not what the catholics claim that Jesus built His church on Peter himself.

 

[Marymog]

Hey Reedfan,

That is a good starting point. Thank you. I have never completely read that.

You stated, "the challenge of Roman Catholicism is to demonstrate that the Bishop of Rome is the only bishop who cannot use his power to deviate from the One Doctrine of the One Church that is teaching One Truth." Doesn't any Protestant denomination have that same challenge? That they can't or haven't deviated from the teachings of Christ or the Apostles? That they can't or won't fall into doctrinal error? If they admit that they have deviated, why would anyone consider them to be The Church that Christ started? It all comes back to which Church (denomination) do you believe OR have evidence is The Church that Christ started that has not deviated from the teachings of the Apostles?

I believe that "Roman Catholicism" HAS demonstrated that the magisterium in Rome IS the head of The Church. I believe the dually elected Pope is holding the seat of Peter in fulfillment of Scripture (Acts 1:20). I believe that, as Scripture says, the Holy Spirit will not and has not allowed The Church to fall into doctrinal error because the Holy Spirit guides the men of The Church into the Truth.

With that said, you got the challenge wrong. The true challenge is to Protestantism; Prove that Rome isn't the head of The Church. Prove which Protestant denomination (they have thousands to choose from) is the head of The Church. They can't and you can't since they all started after the Protestant Revolution. Christian history is not on their side and Scripture is not on their side since they allow gay marriage and support a womans right to kill their baby among many other doctrinal errors.

Hey @RedFan. I asked 5 questions of you in the above post. Are you ever going to address them? YOU are the one that wanted to have the conversation and now you are not conversating.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

BreadofLife and other Catholics demand Matthew 16:18-19 be read in Aramaic.
Why? Because they deny the Greek as being the correct interpretation to,
Peter(petros ) and rock(petra)

You have a weird way of looking at things TItus OR your men from your denomination have done a poor job of teaching you and failed you OR, if you are self-taught on the study of Scripture, you have failed yourself. No scholar would "demand" that Scripture be read in Aramaic. After reading all your posts with @BreadOfLife I don't even see where he demanded that it be read in Aramaic.

The simple fact is when a word is translated from one language to another to another one has to look at the original language or word being spoken and put it in context. That is what BOL did. That is what scholars do. In context BOL and the scholars are right and your men are wrong in the petros petra argument.

If you really want to educate yourself and stop listening to the men from your denomination you would read what the ECF's had to say about it. But instead you want to follow men that lived 1,500 years AFTER the death of Christ instead of me who lived closest to Christ and the Apostles.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You've lost me, BOL. What has this quote got to do with the Papacy? An admonishment to Smyrnean Christians to follow their bishop and their clergy tells us nothing about the status of the Bishop of Rome in A.D. 107.

I was responding to the following remark from @Titus –
“THR LORDS CHURCH HAD ALREADY BEEN IN EXISTENCE SOME 573 YEARS WHEN THIS OCCURRED.”

I proved to him that the Lord’s Church was in fact, the Catholic Church.

He also made the Historically-bankrupt claim that the first Pope came to be in 606 AD, which is noonsense.

(By the way, A.D. 107 is the Second century, not the First.)

Yes - and Ignatius was a FIRST century Bishop who was martyred in 107.
The Church was being called "Catholic" for many years before his death. He is writing to the Church at Smyrna, as they should know this fact.

 

[Shittim]

Good morning RedFan!!!!
That's not the point I was making.
I dont believe the word translated in Aramaic is false no more than the word translated in English makes it false.

The point is God preserved the new testament in Greek manuscripts.
Therefore God APPROVES of Matthew 16:18-19, read this way,
- and I also say to you that you are Peter(Greek petros)
and on the rock(Greek petra) I will build My church
and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.

BreadofLife and other Catholics demand Matthew 16:18-19 be read in Aramaic.
Why? Because they deny the Greek as being the correct interpretation to,
Peter(petros ) and rock(petra)

If they accept the Greek their doctrine on Peter being the Head apostle of the church is shown to be misinterpretation of the Scriptures.

You can quote it in any language you want and it does not disprove what the Greek says.

Matthew itself refutes the catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19.
Catholics claim Peter is the Head of the church in
Matthew 16:18-19.
That contradicts Matthew 28:18-19!!!
Matthew 28:18-19,
- ALL AUTHORITY has been given to Me in heaven AND ON EARTH

Matthew states Jesus has ALL AUTHORITY on earth
Catholics claim in the same book it teaches Peter has the Authority on earth over the church.

Peter cannot be appointed the authority on earth as Head of the church in Matthew. When in Matthew Jesus says He is the AUTHORITY ON EARTH.

Too many Heads on ONE Body!!!

Colossians 1:18,
- and Jesus is the Head of the body, the church who is the firstborn of the dead that in ALL THINGS He may have the PREEMINENCE

The Greek proves Jesus built His church on the confession that is a Revelation from God spoken from Peter's mouth.
Not what the catholics claim that Jesus built His church on Peter himself.

AMEN!!!!

 

[BreadOfLife]

You are making stuff up.
Nowhere in Scripture does it teach Jesus spoke to Peter in Aramaic.
The real evidence is the earliest manuscripts we do have of Matthew are written in greek.

The Bible records Jesus speaking in Aramaic, as I have shown you THREE times now.
You have YET to refute it . . .

You most certainly did,
You are the liar,

Didn’t YOU report ME for calling YOU that very word??

Consider yourself reported . . .

Next you have admitted without realizing you deny the manuscripts of Matthew.
You deny the written copies of Matthew as being the word Jesus spoke.

I have never said ANY such thing.

Your penchant for dishonesty is your downfall.
Exod. 20:16
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor".

You reject the greek!!!
Which you admit is the written word.
You only hold to oral tradition.
And your claim that Jesus spoke to Peter in Aramaic in the book of Matthew, specifically in Matthew 16:18-19 CANNOT BE PROVEN WITH SCRIPTURE.

You Catholics want to claim that Jesus spoke to Peter in Aramaic but,
WHAT DID GOD PRESERVE FOR US IN THE WRITTEN WORD OF THE BOOK OF MATTHEW?

Answer: Greek

You are denying the word of God.

Since God did not preserve for us a manuscript first written in Aramaic.
In fact all the Aramaic is translated from the Greek manuscripts.

You are trying to deceive folks by claiming it was the spoken in Aramaic,
Therefore the written manuscripts in Greek are NOT THE WORDS OF JESUS.

Its obvious you are wrong because God preserved the Greek manuscripts.
Since God preserved Matthew in the Greek.
That's exactly what God wants us to read when we read Matthew.

But you say NO, it must be read in Aramaic to be understood.

Well on judgment day you can tell God why He was wrong for preserving the written word of
Jesus to Peter in Greek not in Aramaic.

Again all written Aramaic of Matthew is copied from the Greek manuscripts.

I don’t “reject” the Greek.

It was the CATHOLIC Church who preserved the manuscripts, compiled the Books and declared the Canon of Scripture in 383 AD at the Council of Rome.

I embrace the Greek texts. I’m also educated enough to know that Jesus SPOKE in Aramaic.
I’ve given you Biblical examples of this – and YOU have failed to address them.

These are some of the Aramaic words spoken by Jesus:
"Talitha koum"- Mat 5:3
"Ephphatha" Mark 7:34
"Eli, Eli lama sabathani" verse Matt. 27:46

Refute that, Einstein . . .

 

[RedFan]

Hey @RedFan. I asked 5 questions of you in the above post. Are you ever going to address them? YOU are the one that wanted to have the conversation and now you are not conversating.

Mary

Sorry, I had to leave town for a funeral Thursday and completely forgot about your post. Yes, I'll try to respond soon.

 

[Marymog]

I'm waiting for just one passage.
Are you going to give one?

Give one passage that says he wasn't. Since there is not a single passage that says he was or wasn't then one has to look at all of the NT and historical Christian writings. If one reads all of the NT it is easy to see that he was. Even your Protestant bible scholars agree. Post #1460 and 1461 from @Jude Thaddeus is clear evidence that Peter was leader of the Apostles after Jesus was crucified.

 

[RedFan]

Good morning RedFan!!!!
That's not the point I was making.
I dont believe the word translated in Aramaic is false no more than the word translated in English makes it false.

The point is God preserved the new testament in Greek manuscripts.
Therefore God APPROVES of Matthew 16:18-19, read this way,
- and I also say to you that you are Peter(Greek petros)
and on the rock(Greek petra) I will build My church
and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.

BreadofLife and other Catholics demand Matthew 16:18-19 be read in Aramaic.
Why? Because they deny the Greek as being the correct interpretation to,
Peter(petros ) and rock(petra)

If they accept the Greek their doctrine on Peter being the Head apostle of the church is shown to be misinterpretation of the Scriptures.

You can quote it in any language you want and it does not disprove what the Greek says.

Matthew itself refutes the catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19.
Catholics claim Peter is the Head of the church in
Matthew 16:18-19.
That contradicts Matthew 28:18-19!!!
Matthew 28:18-19,
- ALL AUTHORITY has been given to Me in heaven AND ON EARTH

Matthew states Jesus has ALL AUTHORITY on earth
Catholics claim in the same book it teaches Peter has the Authority on earth over the church.

Peter cannot be appointed the authority on earth as Head of the church in Matthew. When in Matthew Jesus says He is the AUTHORITY ON EARTH.

Too many Heads on ONE Body!!!

Colossians 1:18,
- and Jesus is the Head of the body, the church who is the firstborn of the dead that in ALL THINGS He may have the PREEMINENCE

The Greek proves Jesus built His church on the confession that is a Revelation from God spoken from Peter's mouth.
Not what the catholics claim that Jesus built His church on Peter himself.

I think the Catholic argument is that Jesus and Peter conversed in Aramaic and the author of Mathew wrote in Greek -- so he had to translate Jesus's Aramaic words into Greek. And since Aramaic has just one word kepha for rock (“You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my Church"), the different genders petros/petra are not possible in Aramaic, so the author could make a play on words possible in Greek but not in Aramaic. He uses different words in the Greek for Peter and Rock. Jesus did not.

Whether Matthew took some license here and put his own gloss on what Jesus meant, or whether God inspired him to do so in order to capture Jesus' actual meaning, we can debate all day long. But the point the Catholics are making (as I understand it) is that the Aramaic spoken words don't -- can't -- reveal the petros/petra distinction. And they are right about that.

 

[Titus]

I think the Catholic argument is that Jesus and Peter conversed in Aramaic and the author of Mathew wrote in Greek -- so he had to translate Jesus's Aramaic words into Greek

Give Scripture that teaches Jesus spoke to Peter in Aramaic in Matthew 16:18-19?

As I already taught you, no one comes to truth by assumptions.

Its obvious at least to me that God had the new testament written and preserved in greek.
This is how it should be read, petros, petra.
BreadofLife,
Demands it must be read in Aramaic to be accurately understood.
He's obviously biased because he's catholic and the Greek language disproves catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19.

Outside sources of uninspired men after the apostles is not how we come to the truth on what sayeth the Scriptures.

The
Bible proves the Bible.
Did Jesus say men that write history books are our source of truth?

According to God what is truth and where do we go to find it?

John 17:17,
- sanctify them by Your truth, Your word is truth

 

[RedFan]

Give Scripture that teaches Jesus spoke to Peter in Aramaic in Matthew 16:18-19?

I don't have any, nor would I expect to see any. Why in the world would you ever assume that two first century Galileans spoke Greek to each other? That is such a bizarre assumption -- and I know how much you dislike assumptions!

 

[Augustin56]

I think the Catholic argument is that Jesus and Peter conversed in Aramaic and the author of Mathew wrote in Greek -- so he had to translate Jesus's Aramaic words into Greek. And since Aramaic has just one word kepha for rock (“You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my Church"), the different genders petros/petra are not possible in Aramaic, so the author could make a play on words possible in Greek but not in Aramaic. He uses different words in the Greek for Peter and Rock. Jesus did not.

Whether Matthew took some license here and put his own gloss on what Jesus meant, or whether God inspired him to do so in order to capture Jesus' actual meaning, we can debate all day long. But the point the Catholics are making (as I understand it) is that the Aramaic spoken words don't -- can't -- reveal the petros/petra distinction. And they are right about that.

The whole issue, I think, is a non-starter. From what I recall, the words petros and petra were used for grammatical reasons. One is masculine and one is feminine. It would have been a grammatical error to assign a feminine noun to Peter, who was a male. Additionally, there was, about 200 years earlier, some Greek poetry that assigned the meanings of big rock and little rock to the two words, but by the time the New Testament had been written, that was no longer the case. Both words simply meant rock.

 

[Titus]

I don't have any, nor would I expect to see any. Why in the world would you ever assume that two first century Galileans spoke Greek to each other? That is such a bizarre assumption -- and I know how much you dislike assumptions

You just answered your own argument,

I don't have any, nor would I expect to see any.

I dont care what language people assume Jesus spoke to Peter in Matthew 16:18-19.
God settled the matter when He chose to Preserve His new testament in Greek.

That proves it is approved of by God to use Greek language petros, petra.

Breadof Life is disagreeing that Greek is the best most accurate words for Rock.
He is wiser than God I guess.
He can tell God on judgement day how God should have used Aramaic and had all other languages translated from it.

 

[Titus]

assume that two first century Galileans spoke Greek to each other?

I'm not assuming they spoke ONLY in greek.
As I've said over and over, they spoke in three languages in Galilee

 

[Titus]

The whole issue, I think, is a non-starter. From what I recall, the words petros and petra were used for grammatical reasons

Yes there is good reason God wanted these two Greek words for rock used.

One is masculine and one is feminine. It would have been a grammatical error to assign a feminine noun to Peter, who was a male.

Peter(petros) noun, masculine a stone or boulder, Peter a Greek name meaning Rock

 

[Augustin56]

Yes there is good reason God wanted these two Greek words for rock used.

Peter(petros) noun, masculine a stone or boulder, Peter a Greek name meaning Rock

Of course. Greek was the literary language chosen at the time. And, the two words were used because that was how Greek was grammatically written. God would not have wanted a feminine noun to represent Peter, a male.

 

[RedFan]

I dont care what language people assume Jesus spoke to Peter in Matthew 16:18-19.
God settled the matter when He chose to Preserve His new testament in Greek.

And here is where we part company, my friend. God didn't choose to have the Evangelist write in Greek. The Evangelist chose to write in Greek.

 

[Titus]

And here is where we part company, my friend. God didn't choose to have the Evangelist write in Greek. The Evangelist chose to write in Greek.

God has foreknowledge
You think He didn't use a dead language so that the meaning of words wouldn't change with time?

IT WASN'T BY CHANCE THE MANUSCRIPTS WERE PRESERVED IN KOINE GREEK.

Gods hand is in how His word will be preserved forever,
Psalm 12:6-7,
- The words of the Lord are pure words as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times,
You shall preserve them from this generation forever

1Peter 1:24-25,
- because all flesh is as grass and all the glory of man as the flower of the grass the grass withers and its flower falls away, but the word of the Lord endures forever now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you

 

[RedFan]

God has foreknowledge
You think He didn't use a dead language so that the meaning of words wouldn't change with time?'

Actually, I think He didn't use a dead language, a live language, or ANY language. The Evangelist made that choice. Not God. (I'm starting to repeat myself.)

IT WASN'T BY CHANCE THE MANUSCRIPTS WERE PRESERVED IN KOINE GREEK.

That's true. The preservation of Koine Greek manuscripts was a deliberate choice. Of man, not of God. And I could say the same about the Gospel According to Matthew in Aramaic. That one's preserved in the British Library. (Man's choice again.)