Why was Simon's name changed to Peter?

[miz3]

Miz3, it is the context that makes one realize it must be understood that way. There is other verses in the Bible the same must be done to get it straight.

Question for you, do you believe Jesus built HIS Church on Peter? Tell me how that can be true?

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

If the context makes your point valid, then you should use the whole passage in its context to make your point.

The problem is you used no context, you just cited the text as a stand alone and then asserted something and "inserted" something that is not found in the "stand alone text".

If your theology is valid by using the context then use the context.

I never ever said your point was not valid. I just said that your method was not invalid thus negating the truth of your assertion. You must never ever use an invalid method even if you have a correct theology.

Correct method and correct theology always go together.

Otherwise we get sloppy and then we make mistakes and eventually our sloppy methodology does lead us down the wrong theology.

Others look not only to the correctness of our theology but to the correctness of our methodology.

It is OK for you to try again. This time make your point but cite the whole passage in context this time and show that your theology is correct.

I look forward to you doing this to show that Peter is not the first POPE and that God does not rest His Church on Peter.

[miz3]

miz3, the verse says "THIS". It is up to YOU to decide who/what THIS refers to as "THIS" is not a proper noun.

You miss my point. You are sooooooo hung up about being against everything I say that you cannot see straight.

Read what I have written carefully.

[Lysimachus]

You've got to be kidding me.

Miz3 believes Peter was the first Pope?

...Just when I thought it couldn't get worse...

*faints*

[ClubV12]

miz3 says,

"Read what I have written carefully."

Seriously, why would anyone bother? :)

[miz3]

You've got to be kidding me.

Miz3 believes Peter was the first Pope?

...Just when I thought it couldn't get worse...

*faints*

You mean Peter was not the "First Pope"?

[John317]

You mean Peter was not the "First Pope"?

No, Peter wasn't the first Pope.

Do you believe he was?

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

You mean Peter was not the "First Pope"?

No, Peter wasn't the first Pope.

Do you believe he was?

I think that Lysimachus thinks I believe this. I was waiting for him to explain why that text does not point to Peter as the First Pope.

I would be interested in both your explanations.

[jasd]

QR frame:

Coupla two-three things...

In that the [F]irst Bishop of the visible body of Jesus Christ is Pope,

Writ informs that it was St James who the [F]irst Pope.

However, the RCC recognizes that St Peter was, by exposition of texts relevant to the matter, eminently the First Pope, as exposited from the several texts relevant to the matter.

The latter clause of Matthew 16:18 seems endued with more significance than even the Petros/petra confabulation...

Re the church: “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

What are the purposes of gates?—as in “the gates of hell”... Seems to me that the descriptive nature of gates are to contain or to defend against – following, that even hell (the grave/death) should not be able to withstand the church. Funny, ain not been seein’ much of overcoming the “gates of hell” by the church lately. Just sayin’.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: miz3

You mean Peter was not the "First Pope"?

No, Peter wasn't the first Pope.

Do you believe he was?

Well... According to an article published in the Advent Review and and Sabbath Herald way back in the 1800's, it wasn't Peter. The author's opinion that a fair reading of Romans 16:1,2 indicated that Phoebe was the first pope of Rome...

[Dr. Rich]

The Catholic Church did not get it's start until after the Constitine bible was 'invented' hundreds of years after Paul's words found in Romans. (Interestingly, the book of Romans was probably written after Peter had already died.) It was Consititine who attempted to join the pagan, Jewish and the loosly assorted churches/groups that had been established because of Paul, AND those who continued with the group known as 'THE WAY' who also had fractional groups break off, and we know of one of those who wrote what was discovered as the "Dead Sea Scrolls".

[tall73]

I don't think Gibs was trying to translate, but just to propose a solution to the identity of the Rock.

[tall73]

Here are later reflections by Peter on stones, which may or may not relate. A different word is used, but what may be a similar thought.

1Pe 2:1 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander.

1Pe 2:2 Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation--

1Pe 2:3 if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.

1Pe 2:4 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious,

1Pe 2:5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

1Pe 2:6 For it stands in Scripture: "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."

1Pe 2:7 So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,"

1Pe 2:8 and "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

1Pe 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

[tall73]

Gib's, thanks for including the word "myself" in that verse as it brings more clairity to the word.

Thats one reason I like to compare various and different versions as well as consider the interlinear when seeking a deeper understanding of a verse. I typically ignore the comments folks make about they DON'T like this or that version for whatever reason, fine, don't use a version you don't like.

I have a particular version I prefer, but won't turn my nose up at someone who prefers a different one.

I don't think his was a version, just his proposal as to the import of the term rock in this instance.

So bringing in which Bible version is correct confuses things. It is not a translation issue but an interpretation issue.

The words in the original don't have "myself". The discussion is whether it is Himself that is being referred to by the term rock, which is in the text.

[miz3]

Here are later reflections by Peter on stones, which may or may not relate. A different word is used, but what may be a similar thought.

1Pe 2:1 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander.

1Pe 2:2 Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation--

1Pe 2:3 if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.

1Pe 2:4 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious,

1Pe 2:5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

1Pe 2:6 For it stands in Scripture: "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."

1Pe 2:7 So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,"

1Pe 2:8 and "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

1Pe 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

Who is this "Stone" the text above is talking about?

Could this be a text that would explain what Christ meant when he talked to Peter?

[miz3]

Tom, here is the text you referred to:

"I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant[a] of the church in Cenchrea. 2 I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me."

Romans 16:1-2.

It seems that at the very least she was a "Bishop" and a significant leader for Paul to refer to her thus.

As a Bishop she would indeed could be considered the Pope because all the Pope is, is the "First (or highest) Bishop". Paul is certainly telling the believers that Phoebe is a leader to be listened to and followed. The text tells us that Phoebe had great authority in any case.