The fact that they spoke Aramaic has everything to do with what is said.  The words came from Jesus in Aramaic, Jesus didn’t write them.

“He uses Cephas in the Greek manuscripts”.  As in, Peter is Cephas (Kephas), the rock?

When He first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him closely and said, Thou art Simon the son of Jonah; thou shalt be called Cephas [which means the same as Peter]" [John 1:42]. The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek as we have already discussed. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" [Matt. 16: 17]. Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then He said again: "Thou art Peter" [Matt. 16:18]. Christ added the promise that the Church that would be established would be founded on Peter. Then two important things were told the Apostle. "Whatever thou shalt bind on earth shalt be bound in Heaven; whatever thou shalt loose on earth shalt be loosed in Heaven" [Matt. 16:19]. Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the other Apostles would share in these powers but Peter was the official holder of them. Then Peter alone was promised something else. "I will give to thee [ singular] the keys to the kingdom of Heaven" [Matt. 16:19]. In ancient times keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate and that gate one great lock worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city [an honor which exists even today, though its import is largely lost] meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible [Isa. 22:22, Apoc. 1:18].

After the Resurrection, Jesus appeared to His disciples and asked Peter three times [designating special significance], "Dost thou love Me?" [John 21:15-17]. In expiation for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, Who is the Good Shepherd [John 10:11,14], gave Peter all the authority He earlier promised: "Feed My sheep" [John 21:17]. Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to Oliveto. Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has claimed power over you all, so that he can sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for thee [singular], that thy faith may not fail; when, after a while, thou hast come back to Me [after the denials], it is for thee to be the support of thy brethren" [Luke 22:3 1-32]. It was Peter that Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others, and His prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled.

Gymnastics? Gymnastics is building an entire doctrine about the chair of Peter and most of the RCC’s doctrine from one out of context verse.


Galatians 2:

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

The Churches in gentile nations were under Paul. The job to build gentile churches was given to Paul. Peter’s ministry was to the Jews.

The Lord’s words,

Acts 9:15
But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:



Paul,

13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:


As to what was suppose to happen after Jesus was gone and the apostles gone.



Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:


14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!


Titus 1:5
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:



What’s supposed to happen is each church is supposed to spread the gospel and start other churches that then spread the gospel and so on and so forth.

Contrary to Catholic belief Mary is not the new Eve, the Church is. The Church is the bride of Christ, the second Adam. We are Christs help meet in spreading the gospel. The church’s job is to “birth”  new believers via her husband’s seed(the gospel)

1 Peter 1:23
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

I stated, Paul knows both Greek and Aramaic words for rock. He uses petros petra and Cephas. He only uses the Greek words to refer to the spiritual rock and that of Christ. Paul received his revelation directly from Christ so the line of communication was secure and translation was not an issue for his understanding, so why does his translation matter since he clearly knows when to use Aramaic or Greek whenever appropriate?

If your translation uses Cephas in all instances it is in error.

What is your contention with the facts in my original post? I stated no opinion.

"One" out of context verse?  That isn't even out of context?  

Who do you suppose directed Paul to preach to the Gentiles?


42And he commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is he who was appointed by God, to be judge of the living and of the dead.
43To him all the prophets give testimony, that by his name all receive remission of sins, who believe in him.
44While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word.
45And the faithful of the circumcision, who came with Peter, were astonished, for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also.
46For they heard them speaking with tongues, and magnifying God.
47Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?
48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then they desired him to tarry with them some days.

6And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter.
7And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us;
9And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
11But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, in like manner as they also.
12And all the multitude held their peace; and they heard Barnabas and Paul telling what great signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

So you agree with the total free for all of denominations with no unity whatsoever to stand the test of time?  

So then why didn't that happen?  Why for over a thousand years was it a unified church?  Why did the Apostles not start all their own churches bust instead recognized the authority of Peter?

The Catholic Church does state that the Church is the Bride of Christ, not sure where you got something different.


You haven't countered a single thing I have cited.  

I'm referring to the verse proclaiming Peter to be the rock upon which the Church is to be built.  Petros and Petra were incorrectly used in the protestant argument of that verses translation.

Right here you stated they weren't the same word.  

In that verse they absolutely are the same word.

The quoted post makes me sad.

Catholicism is another of the free for all denominations.

What you say is very telling on whom it appears you place your faith in.

Do you need examples of the free for all with in Catholicism?
Small example of thousands of examples of the Catholic church and their free for all (let me know if you need more).

St. Paul the Apostle Catholic Church in Manhattan has launched an exhibit titled “God is Trans: A Queer Spiritual Journey”

This is what happens when you forget who the head of the Church is, and who the Church is.

Christ is the Head of the Church and the Church is not comprised of denominations but of people.

When churches stress more importance on the denomination and the so called heads of denominations, one has to wonder why they can't see how weak the north American Faith is, as in the small example of the chosen denomination above.

The current head of the Catholic denomination is a simple propagandist for communism.  This is not meant as an insult but you would have to be blind and deaf to believe otherwise.  Prove me wrong.

Who do you think I have my faith in?  Are you questioning my faith in Jesus?

I won't argue against the Catholic Church being in a very bad state, and that the current pope is the worst pope to have ever held that office, not at all.  But I will argue that the office of the pope is valid.  Just as America is in a horrible state, it doesn't invalidate the structure or offices of that structure.  Corrupt? Absolutely, but still valid.

The Catholic Church isn't a denomination.


Christ is the head of the Church, I never said otherwise and neither has the Catholic Church, the church is the bride of Christ and is made of it's members.  The pope is the earthly head of the church, not above Christ.  I haven't forgotten anything, you're twisting the discussion and the entire premise of this thread.  If you would like to discuss the current issues of the Catholic Church (of which there are plenty) I will gladly do so in another thread.

I said, "not exactly the same word" and I stand by this.
If at the spelling bee you are told to spell "asked" and you only spell "ask" you lose.
1.99" is not exactly 2" anymore than Petros is exactly petra or asked is ask

Kephas and Kephas are the same word is what I am saying.  As it originally was spoken.  Considering Greek, it had never existed as a name prior, Petros is masculine in Greek and Petra is feminine.


Did you read the sources I cited?  This isn’t exactly the first this has been discussed in 2000 years.

So what did take place after Christ?  What took place after the first 12 apostles?

Clearly they all understood Peter to be the earthly head of the church and so did their followers. Because the succession began, we know this historically.  What continued time after time, decade after decade?  We know for a fact it was a unified and centralized church.

Your faith appears from your post to be in Men and not the living God of the universe.  I could be wrong but by your writings in this thread this is how your posts appear to frame it.



The Pope being valid for what, to tell us that we should all be little commies?  
The head of the Church is Christ and will always be Christ.  
The pope like all men are fallable.  just like Peter, Just like Paul.
Remember where it is recorded that Paul had to publicly chastise Peter for being a jew when claiming the name of Christ.  
Where are the Catholics who are close to your pope today publicly chastising him to his face for his false beliefs?


Tell that to the orthodox church.   Whether we want to pretend it isn't, it is a simple denomination that has gone astray as the Pharisees and Sadducees.  
Jesus made it clear to the elite that they took their eyes of God for their own devices.  Looking at the state of the "corporate" Church today it appears we have done the same.  Some churches more than others.



Nope, looking from the outside in, the catholic church from all appearances somehow does everything to take their eyes off the living God and convincing people to put their eyes on men and idols.
A few examples;
The pope
Christ is still hanging on the cross in the catholic church
Idols are abound in the catholic church and prayed to.
The catholic church forgot about their being One mediator between man and God and say prayers to Mary and the Saints whom can do nothing since their is only "One" mediator.

This is not to say the protestant or orthodox churches don't have their own issues, but this isn't the point of discussion in this thread.



To your point, he is not, he is a mere man who has no authority over anyone but those who submit to the pope.
Why would you submit to a man when you have the Living God who died for you that can submit your life to?

The Holy Spirit is the earthly head of the Church.............prove me wrong.
Thats not to say their are not great leaders and shepherds of the church, this is always been done by the Spirit working through them.  Having the title "pope" doesn't make it so.



Not twisting anything.  The discussion is who is Rock on which the Church is built, and you are claiming it is Peter, others are claiming it is not.

Even Paul scoffed at the denomination and man worshipping that is prevalent in some churches and not others while begging us to be unified in Christ.

10 Now I urge you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brothers and sisters, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. 12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am with Paul,” or “I am with Apollos,” or “I am with Cephas,” or “I am with Christ.” 13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name! 16 But I did baptize the household of Stephanas also; beyond that, I do not know if I baptized anyone else. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made of no effect.

I will end with this.  

Has Christ been divided?
Peter or the current pope was not crucifed for you, was he?
Or were you baptized in the name of Peter or the current pope?

These words are just as meaningful now as the day the Spirit penned them through Paul and yet these arguments are as timeless as scripture

Are you upset about something?


Edit: Yes I was talking about Peter, you are redirecting the discussion to the current status of the Catholic Church and then bashing said church.

If you want to discuss that then start another thread.

No redirection at all.
Showing the fallacy of calling Peter the rock evidenced by the posted scripture.

Sorry if I hit a nerve, not my intention

As stated in my post.  This argument was happening in Pauls day.
Nothing has changed.


Pauls questions that may be difficult for you to answer are still relevant today.  

Has Christ been divided?
Peter or the current pope was not crucifed for you, was he?
Or were you baptized in the name of Peter or the current pope?

No, I didn't read them. I believe the word can be understood without historical inferences from nonbiblical sources. Sola Scriptura
I haven't disagreed with you on the meaning, but that the written Word, which is fully adequate to prepare a man for every good thing, uses 3-words that are not exactly the same.

The only nerve hit appears to be yours, brother, or you wouldn't have stooped to personal insults and judgements against someone you do not know.

Peter's name was Simon, Jesus called him Cephas as a metaphor (and possibly a joke)

Nope

Honor, Revere, Petition

Not serve, follow or worship

Making friends and influencing people I see.

Would you kindly, but please briefly, outline the steps in this deduction?

Would you mind quoting this personal insult?

The importance put on Peter being the rock of the church instead of keeping our eyes on the living God who is the Rock of the Church
Just as Peter, we are all spirit filled and have our gifts but none have the gift of perfection and the ability to forgive us of our sins.

1 Samuel 2:2 There is none holy like the Lord: for there is none besides you; there is no rock like our God.”

The emphasis on the Church being built on Peter as the foundation just doesn't sit well and is reminiscent Of the Jews during Jesus' time.

Hopefully that is brief enough

Again, these questions from Paul are just as relevant for His Church today as they were during Pauls time

Has Christ been divided?
Peter or the current pope was not crucifed for you, was he?
Or were you baptized in the name of Peter or the current pope?

To be clear, I believe we are all Brothers and Sisters here (ETA those that have faith in the Christ of the bible).  It is the same Christ that we are following and worshiping but we need to be clear and not confusing.  There is only one Rock!

"every man his own pope" apparently

Does not the Holy Spirit live in those who have called on the name of Jesus?
Are there not gifts of the Spirit endowed to us by our Creator?
It is a strange belief that when the apostles died that somehow we need a pope because the Spirit living in us is not enough?
It is the Spirit that continues to work through men on earth for His Church
Brothers/Sisters find your gifts, use them to bring the Kingdom of Heaven to earth an make it real for those around you.
This world needs the Peace of the Christ now more than ever in my lifetime.

The same questions Paul asked are still relevant today
Has Christ been divided?
Peter or the current pope was not crucifed for you, was he?
Or were you baptized in the name of Peter or the current pope?

In Mat: 16:18, "this rock" refers to Peters confession (Mat: 16:16) "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God". Peters confession was his answer when Jesus asked the disciples (Mat: 16:15) "But who say ye that I am?"

eta: Not Peter himself, but Peters confession.

That he has more faith in men than in God because he believes that God founded His church on Peter is a statement that seems to have pretty wide gaps in reasoning.  



Your position seems to be that his faith is on men as opposed to on God because he believes that God used Peter as a rock for the foundation of His Church.



It was brief enough until you edited your post to add the absurd comments in red.  If you truly believe that his faith is in men instead of in God, then you cannot reasonably believe that he is your brother in Christ.  Both statements cannot be true.  But if you believe that he is your brother in Christ because he cannot possibly have more appreciation for a rock than for the Builder Who made use of it, then your first statement I took exception with is not true.  To be clear, I don't think you're being dishonest, but your logic or ability to express it is sorely lacking.

I trust you're aware the exegesis you posted comes from St. Augustine.  At least, I'm not aware of anyone else explaining it that way before him.  It's actually one of two interpretations that he held.  The other one, of course, being that our Lord rewarded St. Peter with a position of honor via the rock metaphor.  Interestingly, St. Augustine ends with, "Let the reader choose whether of these two opinions seems to him the more probable."  Clearly, he didn't see a problem or conflict with either and his audience at that time would not have either.  I suspect he may have been more cautious and caveated it more carefully now that one of his interpretations is used to undermine the Petrine primacy.

I love that Theophylact of Ohrid, the revered Eastern exegete, who was involved in the Great Schism, does not see a problem with the importance placed on St. Peter--as opposed to other men, not as opposed to God Himself, for crying out loud--and does not see a conflict between St. Augustine's interpretations either.  He flows from one to the other, "The Lord gives Peter a great reward, that the Church will be built on him. Since Peter confessed Him as Son of God, the Lord says, "This confession which you have made shall be the foundation of those who believe, so that every man who intends to build the house of faith shall lay down this confession as the foundation." For even if we should construct a myriad of virtues, but we do not have as a foundation the orthodox confession, our construction is rotten. By saying "My Church" He shows that He is the Master of all, for the whole universe is the servant of God."

I am NOT saying Peter is the Rock, rather Peters confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. For all Christians, this confession is the truth Christianity depends on. Without this truth there is no Christianity.

the comments are in red are biblical quotes.
I am sure you don't think the Gods word is absurd, I only emphasized it to demonstrate it is for all denominations Paul was speaking to.  Catholic being one of them.
As most biblical scholars agree, the "Church" is the people not the denomination,  The one true Church doesn't belong to anyone other than Jesus.

As far as your comment that I cannot believe others in different denominations are my brothers in Christ, you have taken my comments out of context
1st, I said by his posts it "appeared" that he put his faith in men
2nd, only God and the person know if they are saved or not, in no way do I know who is saved or not other than myself.
3rd, the comment regarding brothers is a "corporate" comment for those who call on the name of the Christ.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Clear as Mississippi mud

What denominations was Paul speaking to?

Without posting numerous Scriptures,

Who is the "Rock" in the Old Testament?

FPNI

You tell me.
The emphasis Paul was making was that all those in that passage were putting there importance on following and being associated with the different men he mentions.

They were taking their eyes of Christ and putting their faith in men/sects.

He even mentions those who were bragging about following Cephas, demonstrating that they were all going astray by following men instead of the Man God.
You would think if the Church was built on Cephas that he would not have mentioned Cephas in this context

When is it ever any good to put our faith in men or sects in Christianity?

Paul obviously thought it important enough to tackle this issue that is still going on today based on this thread.

The still relevant questions go unanswered by some sects today

]Has Christ been divided?
Paul (insert sect leader here) was not crucified for you, was he?

Why does Paul even have to ask this?  In this thread, his use of hyperbole still confuses people today.

Or were you baptized in the name of Paul (insert sect leader here)?

Again, why would he ask such an absurd question.  If you look at the context this is still happening.
People can pretend it does not but there are too many examples today.

If you don't agree with the context I am posing in these passages, what was Paul trying to say in this passage if not for what he said?

You said he was, not me, it’s on you to back it up and tell us which denominations he was speaking to.

What denominations were there?

And why do you keep asking if I was baptized in the name of someone other than the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

So who was the church built upon?  

You haven't answered any questions yet.

The passage is clear.

Sometimes passages in context, even though the seem plain still could use an explanation.
I will post it here so we can read it together, and if you think it means something different, by all means please correct me.

Lets break this section down verse by verse.
In verse 10 we see Paul making the case and pleading with the brethren to be unified in Christ, that Christ is the only one who can make us whole

10 Now I urge you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.

He moves on in verse 11 to note that some from Chloes household let him know of the divisions that the different sects/factions or today we would call denominations were having.  Obviously they cared enough to have this brought up publicly

11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brothers and sisters, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you.

In verse 12, we see the exact issue that Paul is trying to tackle in the Corinth Church in these verses.
We see him saying that some were following Paul.  By doing this they were stating their allegiance with Paul.
He then moves on to those who were decrying their allegiance to Apollos.  We know that Apollos was one of the busy Christians spreading the Gospel in Acts.  So He was well known and revered.
Paul, now moves on to Peter/Cephas.  IF Peter was called to lead Christs Church or the be Rock that the Church is built on, why do we see Paul calling out the Peter sect in this verse.  Why?  because he was calling out all the factions/sects/denominations that were taking their eyes off of Christ.

12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am with Paul,” or “I am with Apollos,” or “I am with Cephas,” or “I am with Christ.”

Verse 13 we see Paul using basic logic and hyperbole.  He caused those who were dividing into sects to actually take a look at what they were saying by saying these things in verse 13
He helped them realize that these sects they were dividing in and placing the importance on these people was taking their eyes off of Christ and causing divisions by following mere men.

13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

He is so disgusted by this division that he starts to say he is glad he Baptized none (but the few people he mentions) because of these factions/sects/denominations that were forming under the Apostles and early missionaries.

14 I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name!
16 But I did baptize the household of Stephanas also; beyond that, I do not know if I baptized anyone else.

Verse 17 he states and reaffirms his mission for the Church, not to take away from baptism but to emphasize Christ calling for him

17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made of no effect.

dbl tap

You haven't answered anything at all.

Are you implying that Peter can't be the first bishop of the Church after Christ because people were splitting amongst several of the apostles and worshiping said apostles and forming denominations instead of following Christ and His church?

And now because of your misunderstanding you are implying that I am worshiping Peter and was baptized in the name of Peter by my Methodist pastor?


"He is so disgusted by this division that he starts to say he is glad he Baptized none (but the few people he mentions) because of these factions/sects/denominations that were forming under the Apostles and early missionaries."

I want you to meditate on this quote (yours) for a bit.  

The Lord.

1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)


Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

Paul was called directly by the Lord and give his doctrine directly from the Lord.



1 Corinthians 9:17
For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.


3 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,

2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,


Paul received his doctrine directly from God. He wasn’t taught it by any other apostle nor was he commissioned by any other apostle to be an apostle.

When he went to the council at Jerusalem it wasn’t to seek approval. It was to tell the Jews where they were wrong and Peter agreed that what Paul taught was correct. He never needed Peter’s approval. Peter’s roll was to tell the Jews that Paul was correct and they needed to get on board with his doctrine.




Laughable. What unified church? What makes you think every church was unified with the group that went to Rome and made a state religion? If you’re referring to the RCC it has a rich and we’ll documented history of persecuting and killing other Christians they didn’t like.


Again where do you find this stuff? What ounce of scriptural evidence can you show that any of the Apostles recognized Peter as being the Apostlic authority? The last time he’s mentioned in the Acts Of The Apostles is in chapter 15. He isn’t mentioned once in the proceeding 13 chapters. And only has 2 epistles in all of the New Testament scriptures.

You like some of the Corinthians have fallen into the Peter camp. We’re not unified by any man we’re unified by the gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul taught this.

21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are your's;

22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are your's;

23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.




You’ll never be able to understand the scriptures and you’ll always be stuck swimming circles in the doctrines of men as long as you continue to deny Christ through believing a doctrine that teaches that  you somehow keep yourself in God’s grace and maintain salvation and the work of God which he has worked in his power, grace and mercy.


24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.


1 John 2:27
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.


Sorry man. I don’t need some guy in a funny hat that participates in South American idol worship to teach me anything.

You are claiming the church is/was supposed to be what Paul warned the Corinthians about, that's what's "laughable".  

Christ wanted unity, period.

You keep trying to conflate believing Peter was the first leader of the church after Christ with some weird understanding that people replaced Christ with Peter.


Eta:  Why are you so wound up all the time?  Relax a bit, brother.

Why do protestants deny Peter so fervently?   I understand that you protest the catholic church and the papacy, but why does Peter catch so much loathing and seemingly almost hatred?

He didn't replace Christ as some of you seem to think catholics claim, he was just the first steward.



Peter is mentioned first time and time again, with Judas last of course.  

1AND having called his twelve disciples together, he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities.
2And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother,
3James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus,
4Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

14And he made that twelve should be with him, and that he might send them to preach.
15And he gave them power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils.
16And to Simon he gave the name Peter:
17And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he named them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:
18And Andrew and Philip, and Bartholomew and Matthew, and Thomas and James of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, and Simon the Cananean:
19And Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

13And when day was come, he called unto him his disciples; and he chose twelve of them (whom also he named apostles):
14Simon, whom he surnamed Peter, and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,
15Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who is called Zelotes,
16And Jude, the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, who was the traitor.

13And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James.
14All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
15In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said: (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty:)
16Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus:
17Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

Paul traveled to Jerusalem only to see Peter.

18Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem, to see Peter, and I tarried with him fifteen days.
19But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord.

Like I said, Paul was sent to the Gentiles: In Christs name, by James, Peter, and John.  

7But contrariwise, when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision.
8(For he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, wrought in me also among the Gentiles.)
9And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision:

Jesus prayed specifically for Peter:

31And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
32But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.

Jesus telling Peter to feed his sheep:

15When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
16He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
17He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

Peter singled out by name:

5And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed with a white robe: and they were astonished.
6Who saith to them: Be not affrighted; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified: he is risen, he is not here, behold the place where they laid him.
7But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee; there you shall see him, as he told you.

The list goes on.

The pope is the rock.  That is my faith and nothing that can be posted on arfcom will change that.

Also scholars of no religion who focus on Biblical Greek agree.

I speak for no one but myself.  St. Peter was arguably the head of the apostles and definitely part of Jesus’s inner most circle.  I am willing to accept that Simon is in fact the rock.  I also can accept that Peter’s confession is the rock.  

regardless, there is zero scriptural basis for the primacy of the pope and I reject any claim of Roman superiority.

The Acts of the Apostles gives us quite a bit of information too.  In it, we see Peter:
- leading the election of Mathias (chapter 1)
- preaching the first apostolic sermon (chapter 2)
- performing the first apostolic miracle (chapter 3)
- first apostle to rebuke Pharisees (chapter 4)
- first apostle to admonish sinners (chapter 5)
- excommunicating the first heretic (chapter 8)
- first apostle to raise the dead (chapter 9)
- first apostle to command the baptism of gentiles (chapter 10)
- addressing the first apostolic council with authority (chapter 15)

Scripture doesn't lie. Paul was sent to the gentiles, and Peter was sent to the circumcised (Jews).

Galatians 2:7
But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised

Galatians 2:8
(for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles),

Galatians 2:9
and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

"Scripture doesn't lie. Paul was sent to the gentiles, and Peter was sent to the circumcised (Jews)."

Did you read what I posted?
Do you know what you just posted?

Yes and yes,
I was just making it clear that Peter was not sent to the Gentiles.