Guy, you forgot to mention Kephas is real similar to "key has". Get it? Who has the key according to Rome? Why, it's a slam dunk.
IOW by other than grammatical historical methods, we can make Scripture into a wax nose that looks like Pinocchio's. You are welcome to it, but prots don't buy it.
2. So, Cephas sounds like Caiaphas. I'm trying to find a more refined way of asking, "So, what?" Even if I accepted this line of reasoning wouldn't that mean that Peter is the high priest of the new covenant and not Jesus?
3-5. In Matthew 16, the giving of the keys is linked to the power of binding and loosing. Matthew 18 uses the same exact language as Matthew 16 with regard to binding and loosing. Doesn't it make sense that, even though keys are not specifically mentioned in Matthew 18, it is clear that that is what is being discussed? Furthermore, Peter does not receive any keys in Matthew 16. He is given the promise that he will be given the keys some time in the future. There is no mention in Scripture of Peter being given the keys separate from the other apostles.
You said that Peter's office continued after his death. So, the pope is an apostle? If you say that only Peter's role as head of the church (which is actually Christ's title) is passed on and not his apostleship, then I will ask you for the basis of this distinction. Also, why would this only apply to Peter. Following this logic what should be said about the successors of the other apostles? This actually sounds closer to a defense of the Greek Orthodox position and not Roman Catholicism.
Yes, the office of bishop (i.e. overseer/elder) is most certainly passed on in Scripture. That is exactly what protestants believe. Feel free to present evidence that the Scripture establishes a chief shepherd other than Christ.
The problem is that in Matthew 18 the power of binding and loosing (which was associated with the keys in Matthew 16) was given to all the apostles.
ReplyDeleteThe pope is not an apostle nor is there anywhere in God's word where the keys are said to be passed from apostle to non-apostle.
Guy, you forgot to mention Kephas is real similar to "key has".
ReplyDeleteGet it? Who has the key according to Rome? Why, it's a slam dunk.
IOW by other than grammatical historical methods, we can make Scripture into a wax nose that looks like Pinocchio's.
You are welcome to it, but prots don't buy it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. And?
ReplyDelete2. So, Cephas sounds like Caiaphas. I'm trying to find a more refined way of asking, "So, what?" Even if I accepted this line of reasoning wouldn't that mean that Peter is the high priest of the new covenant and not Jesus?
3-5. In Matthew 16, the giving of the keys is linked to the power of binding and loosing. Matthew 18 uses the same exact language as Matthew 16 with regard to binding and loosing. Doesn't it make sense that, even though keys are not specifically mentioned in Matthew 18, it is clear that that is what is being discussed? Furthermore, Peter does not receive any keys in Matthew 16. He is given the promise that he will be given the keys some time in the future. There is no mention in Scripture of Peter being given the keys separate from the other apostles.
You said that Peter's office continued after his death. So, the pope is an apostle? If you say that only Peter's role as head of the church (which is actually Christ's title) is passed on and not his apostleship, then I will ask you for the basis of this distinction. Also, why would this only apply to Peter. Following this logic what should be said about the successors of the other apostles? This actually sounds closer to a defense of the Greek Orthodox position and not Roman Catholicism.
Yes, the office of bishop (i.e. overseer/elder) is most certainly passed on in Scripture. That is exactly what protestants believe. Feel free to present evidence that the Scripture establishes a chief shepherd other than Christ.