Jump to content
Will Smith Drops New Freestyle! Read more... ×
Jazzy Jeff & Fresh Prince Forum
Schnazz

Christian History

Recommended Posts

Peter means rock, but Pope means father. It is the traditional title given to the Bishop of Rome. Though tradition also holds that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, there is no mention of a Pope or a Bishop or Peter even traveling to Rome in the Bible.

Go to the original language, and you'll see "Kephas" (sorry about the spelling). Peter was the first Pope. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, as the other Apostles are Bishops as well. Peter is consulted in issues of faith in the New Testament. Peter, Petros, Kephas, Pope all are under the root idea that Jesus left the keys to the Kingdom (in the next verse) to Peter.

I do Catholic Apologetics, so I'm very well aquainted with the history of the question you raise.

If you see Matthew 16:18-19, you first see Jesus make Peter the rock. (Some question translations, trying to say a gender difference in the translation of rock, but it really is an issue of Jesus masculinizing the word rock in the original written language, as to not call Peter a female rock...but that's deep into the discussion, not neccessarily what you raise)

Then you can look later in John 21:15-17 where Jesus reaffirms Peter as the leader of his sheep.

And then finally, so to not confuse the power granted to Peter with the positions of the other Apostles, Jesus affirmed the faith of the other Apostles in him as the leader of the visible Church (Luke 22:32).

So when all said and done, yes, there is the Pope, the leader of the Church directly in the New Testament. This is all an aside when recognizing the Bible doesn't constitute all of Christianity, considering it's compilation happened long after Jesus died and Christianity began. That's the oral tradition that many miss. Yet the scriptures didn't come until decades after the death of Jesus, and his Apostles were already practicing the sacraments (like reconciliation John 20:23) that were later affirmed in the written portion of the faith.

So I hope that cleared up any confusion.

Kephas means rock, petros means rock, Peter means rock, Pope means father. Yes, Jesus made Peter the leader of the Church, of that there is no doubt. However, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome and neither term appears in the Bible. Maher was right.

If you want to start another thread to delve more deeply into the Bible and Christian history I'd be more than happy to participate, as I have studied both fairly extensively for the last 32 years.

I would like to see this conversation continue, so I moved it over here. One question I have is, and forgive the simplicity of it, I have not studied the bible extensively, nor have I ever been Catholic, however: even if Peter was in fact leader of the Church, why does that translate in there being a concept of a Pope, why didn't that role end with Peter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well first to the Pope vs Peter, it really is the Heir of St. Peter's Throne, or the Vicar of Christ, so in best ways understood, the man form of Jesus' voice on earth. The concept of the Pope, the leader of the Church, the head Apostle, the man to be consulted on issues of faith and morality, is first defined in the Bible. The word specifically "Pope" or its direct translation, no, the very definition: yes.

I concede the word "Pope" comes from "father" as St. Peter became the representative in man form after Jesus died. And we consider Jesus/God/Holy Spirit as father. The reason for Rome rather than any other place is due to Peter and Paul being martyred in Rome.

For Schnazz:

The idea is this:

Jesus of course is the leader in totality. He came to Earth and had a finite time here in human form. So, while on earth, he is the leader, the rock. Since Jesus eventually ascended into heaven, and since he established Peter as the head of the Church, then what happens next? If he went out of his way to establish Peter as the foundation of the visible, physical living Church, and Peter will eventually die, what happens?

Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans (known as Episcopalians in the U.S), etc all claim "Apostolic Succession" to the original Apostles.

So we believe, along with many other forms of Christianity, that we have elected individuals to the role of Peter since Jesus left this earth. The Pope as a father of values, morals and leader of the Church represents the same role Peter took as the lead Apostle.

We have counted 265 Popes, including Peter (one Pope died 3 days into the papacy), and we claim to have the succession correctly from the original apostles.

The reason why we have succession is we believe that Jesus left, as he said, a Church to be visible atop a mountain (Church in the sense of the people, not neccessarily, but including the actual structures). And he gave a human the role of leading the Church since Jesus would leave Earth. So we see the precedence to elect a leader of the Church in the human form.

Edited by Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter means rock, but Pope means father. It is the traditional title given to the Bishop of Rome. Though tradition also holds that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, there is no mention of a Pope or a Bishop or Peter even traveling to Rome in the Bible.

Go to the original language, and you'll see "Kephas" (sorry about the spelling). Peter was the first Pope. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, as the other Apostles are Bishops as well. Peter is consulted in issues of faith in the New Testament. Peter, Petros, Kephas, Pope all are under the root idea that Jesus left the keys to the Kingdom (in the next verse) to Peter.

I do Catholic Apologetics, so I'm very well aquainted with the history of the question you raise.

If you see Matthew 16:18-19, you first see Jesus make Peter the rock. (Some question translations, trying to say a gender difference in the translation of rock, but it really is an issue of Jesus masculinizing the word rock in the original written language, as to not call Peter a female rock...but that's deep into the discussion, not neccessarily what you raise)

Then you can look later in John 21:15-17 where Jesus reaffirms Peter as the leader of his sheep.

And then finally, so to not confuse the power granted to Peter with the positions of the other Apostles, Jesus affirmed the faith of the other Apostles in him as the leader of the visible Church (Luke 22:32).

So when all said and done, yes, there is the Pope, the leader of the Church directly in the New Testament. This is all an aside when recognizing the Bible doesn't constitute all of Christianity, considering it's compilation happened long after Jesus died and Christianity began. That's the oral tradition that many miss. Yet the scriptures didn't come until decades after the death of Jesus, and his Apostles were already practicing the sacraments (like reconciliation John 20:23) that were later affirmed in the written portion of the faith.

So I hope that cleared up any confusion.

Kephas means rock, petros means rock, Peter means rock, Pope means father. Yes, Jesus made Peter the leader of the Church, of that there is no doubt. However, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome and neither term appears in the Bible. Maher was right.

If you want to start another thread to delve more deeply into the Bible and Christian history I'd be more than happy to participate, as I have studied both fairly extensively for the last 32 years.

I would like to see this conversation continue, so I moved it over here. One question I have is, and forgive the simplicity of it, I have not studied the bible extensively, nor have I ever been Catholic, however: even if Peter was in fact leader of the Church, why does that translate in there being a concept of a Pope, why didn't that role end with Peter?

It doesn't. When Jesus appointed Peter and established The Church with His Apostles it was their belief that Judgement would come within their lifetimes. Therefore there was no real reason to set up the kind of Church structure and hierarchy to last generations, let alone centuries. It is a gigantic leap to say that because Jesus made Peter the head of His Church in the Bible that the concept of the Pope was defined there. That concept was developed and defined over centuries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well first to the Pope vs Peter, it really is the Heir of St. Peter's Throne, or the Vicar of Christ, so in best ways understood, the man form of Jesus' voice on earth. The concept of the Pope, the leader of the Church, the head Apostle, the man to be consulted on issues of faith and morality, is first defined in the Bible. The word specifically "Pope" or its direct translation, no, the very definition: yes.

I concede the word "Pope" comes from "father" as St. Peter became the representative in man form after Jesus died. And we consider Jesus/God/Holy Spirit as father. The reason for Rome rather than any other place is due to Peter and Paul being martyred in Rome.

The point was whether Bill Maher was correct in saying that the Pope wasn't in the Bible. The Pope is much more than simply the leader of the Church. The concept of the Pope owes much more to the Roman Paganism that it was developed from than it does to the Judaic concepts of Jesus, Peter and the Apostles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know the Bible inside out, but i try 2 read a little something from it every day, whether it feels like it applies 2 my life or not, but i'm riding with Cozmo!! That's all i gotta say, i hate talking religion, beliefs, and politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point was whether Bill Maher was correct in saying that the Pope wasn't in the Bible. The Pope is much more than simply the leader of the Church. The concept of the Pope owes much more to the Roman Paganism that it was developed from than it does to the Judaic concepts of Jesus, Peter and the Apostles.

And the first Pope, in St. Peter, is defined in the Bible. The concept of the Pope is not a result, directly or indirectly of the Paganism present. The concept of the physical living Church was present before the Bible was compiled. The system was set by Jesus, as I previously quoted. The Church Magesterium was pivotal in defining many of the things upon which Protestants and Catholics to this day agree. For instance, the Nicene Creed spells out the concept of the Trinity, a word/term never spoken in the Bible. Yet only the Jehova Witnesses and Church of Latter Day Saints refute the perfect trinity concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point was whether Bill Maher was correct in saying that the Pope wasn't in the Bible. The Pope is much more than simply the leader of the Church. The concept of the Pope owes much more to the Roman Paganism that it was developed from than it does to the Judaic concepts of Jesus, Peter and the Apostles.

And the first Pope, in St. Peter, is defined in the Bible. The concept of the Pope is not a result, directly or indirectly of the Paganism present. The concept of the physical living Church was present before the Bible was compiled. The system was set by Jesus, as I previously quoted. The Church Magesterium was pivotal in defining many of the things upon which Protestants and Catholics to this day agree. For instance, the Nicene Creed spells out the concept of the Trinity, a word/term never spoken in the Bible. Yet only the Jehova Witnesses and Church of Latter Day Saints refute the perfect trinity concept.

OK, I see this is futile. If you refuse to acknowledge the immense influence of Paganism on the Catholic Church there is nothing for us to talk about. To say that "the system was set by Jesus" (and you quoted no such thing) without a scintilla of evidence or even evidence of evidence renders this totally a discussion on faith, and on that I'll leave you to yours if you leave me to mine. As for the Nicene Creed and the Trinity and it's almost universal (amongst Christians) acceptance, I suppose that had nothing to do with the official suppression and persecution of Arianism by the Church and the Roman Empire. I suppose Jesus set that too. :shake:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I see this is futile. If you refuse to acknowledge the immense influence of Paganism on the Catholic Church there is nothing for us to talk about. To say that "the system was set by Jesus" (and you quoted no such thing) without a scintilla of evidence or even evidence of evidence renders this totally a discussion on faith, and on that I'll leave you to yours if you leave me to mine. As for the Nicene Creed and the Trinity and it's almost universal (amongst Christians) acceptance, I suppose that had nothing to do with the official suppression and persecution of Arianism by the Church and the Roman Empire. I suppose Jesus set that too. :shake:

You see it as futile because I gave you a whole history, with 3 separate instances where Jesus affirms Peter as the rock. You agree to the concept, and then have a blatant disconnect in recognizing the connection. We affirm the rock of the Church as Peter and then every successive heir to St. Peter's throne.

It's straightforward, it's backed by biblical quotes, and it's frustrating to hear you heave old, worn, broken accusations against credibility in text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I see this is futile. If you refuse to acknowledge the immense influence of Paganism on the Catholic Church there is nothing for us to talk about. To say that "the system was set by Jesus" (and you quoted no such thing) without a scintilla of evidence or even evidence of evidence renders this totally a discussion on faith, and on that I'll leave you to yours if you leave me to mine. As for the Nicene Creed and the Trinity and it's almost universal (amongst Christians) acceptance, I suppose that had nothing to do with the official suppression and persecution of Arianism by the Church and the Roman Empire. I suppose Jesus set that too. :shake:

You see it as futile because I gave you a whole history, with 3 separate instances where Jesus affirms Peter as the rock. You agree to the concept, and then have a blatant disconnect in recognizing the connection. We affirm the rock of the Church as Peter and then every successive heir to St. Peter's throne.

It's straightforward, it's backed by biblical quotes, and it's frustrating to hear you heave old, worn, broken accusations against credibility in text.

:thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a lost cause dealing with :ignore:

Oh well, I tried.

:shrug:

Edited by Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hence the reason i avoid these kinds of topics...ha ha. There are some things that are left for interpertation. And usually those things are the important things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×