Jim Lincoln wrote:
No, Bert, an accurate translation doesn't use the word, "Bishop" Catholicized bibles may, but accurate versions don't.

just a thought wrote:
Bert,
You must not overlook 1 Peter 5:1, Peter tells us he is an elder. Elder comes from the Greek 'presbyteros' which means 'among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably'
If Peter were a pope, he would have stated such. Instead, he says he is an elder. So Bert, you are now at a crossroads. Are you going to believe what the word of God states, or are you going to believe what the Roman Catholic Church teaches, which is contrary to God's word?

I was simply pointing out that when explanations of Scriptural passages get complicated, you are probably off base in your interpretation.

Just a thought,

Yes, I checked out that thread. The problem I have with it is that I don’t have a PhD in languages. As a result, I have no idea if the guy who wrote it is 100% correct or blowing smoke.

Michael,

I can assure you that I am being completely honest. None of the Scriptural proofs given were definitive. Every time, there were differing views on the interpretation of the passage. I was just referring to the facts comments which had no justification.

Michael and Mike,

I will try to deal with the whole “Father” thing in another post.

Obfuscate,

I like that word

The Catholic Church has been around for more than twice the time the Protestant Churches have been. During that time, the Catholic interpretation was the ONLY interpretation. Other issues like salvation by faith AND works are Biblical. We DO NOT worship anything or anyone except the Holy Trinity.

Wayne,

Sorry, I haven’t had time to check that one out. I promise I will soon.

Djc49

Take anything out of context and you can prove whatever you want.

Nowhere did I say that the illiterate would be reading Scripture. I said that they would be hearing and embracing it.

#3 is not referring to a particular Church. It is referring to a form of justification for a particular interpretation of a passage of Scripture. I'm sure that there are just as many Catholic theologians as Protestant ones falling into that trap. In this case, though, I was responding to a quote you posted by Mr. Calvin. Had you quoted a Catholic theologian instead, my response would have been the same. We must not obfuscate the Word of God. Jesus made it very clear how He felt about the Pharicees and how they had made it very difficult for the run of the mill Jew to be true to God. The Pharicees set up all kinds of complicated rules that the people had to follow without understanding them.

the facts wrote:
So what you're saying Bert is Roman Catholics can read the Bible - and Protestants can't!!!

You have to remember that for almost 2000 years, the NT was being spread across a world where 90%-95% of all those hearing it were illiterate. Even today, many people in the developing world are illiterate but they still embrace the Word of God. Too often, though, I have come across explanations of a passage of Scripture that I had a difficult time understanding. I don't have a PhD but I'm not illiterate, either. If *I* have a difficult time understanding a particular explanation of a passage, what chance does an illiterate person have?

I just believe that the Word of God is for everyone. If you have to use complex grammatical terminology to support your favorite interpretation of a passage, I think that you have missed the boat. Scripture says what it says. As long as there are no translation errors, I believe that we should take it at face value.

John UK wrote:
Thank you Bert
I refer you to my post of 11.28am which has correction and a comment from the Jameson, Faucett and Brown Commentary.

My take on Matt 18:18 – with Matt 16:19 and John 20:23 in mind is that there are two things going on:

1)Jesus has initially given the power and authority to forgives sins, etc to Peter. But, Peter is human and is subject to all the normal human frailties. So, to make sure that this power and authority don’t go to his head, Jesus grants the same power and authority to the other Apostles; and

djc49 wrote:
The point, *Bert*, is that NO form of representational worship is allowed! Period. That's the whole thrust of the 2nd commandment. And you miss this vital point badly.

djc49 wrote:
And if YOU read the entire portion of Scripture (Exodus 32) correctly, you can see that the Israelites REPLACED ***MOSES*** with the golden calf!

John UK wrote:
Can't stop, but a little comment on this, Bert, concerning the AV Bible.
"Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven....."
If Jesus was talking to one man, it would have been translated: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven....."
Ye, you, your = plural
Thou, thee, thine = singular
I'm outta here....

Well one of us errs. Exodus 32:8 says that my position is in harmony with God's so I think I am safe.

If you read the entire passage (Ex 32:1-9) you can see that the Israelites REPLACED God with the golden calf. In doing so, the calf became the LORD to them. God even says so in vers 8: "They have soon turned aside from the way I pointed
out to them, making for themselves a molten calf and worshiping
it, sacrificing to it and crying out, 'This is your God, O
Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt!'". They worshipped IT. God didn't say "They worshipped Me through it" or "They worshipped Me" which would have been true had the calf been intended as a representation of God. Also see Ex 32:31.

WayneM wrote:
At the council in Jerusalem Peter took no part in the conversations, but the Apostle James presided and pronounced the council's decision. (Acts 15)

I didn't say that Peter was the only Apostle to perform signs. My point was that Peter was not just another elder. Only the Apostles performed signs, none of the other slders did.

I don't understand why you are fixated on titles like "Pope" or "Vicar of Christ" or any other title. These titles were not in use at the time. But, Peter emerged as Pope in everything but name.

WayneM wrote:
Bert,
Christ gave the same thing symbolized by the keys to all of the disciples. "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matt 18:18

Michael Hranek wrote:
Bert
I know what you are trying to say but Jesus simply did not call Peter (a stone) THE ROCK who Scripture clearly identifies as the LORD.

Jesus did not say "You are Peter and on the rock I will build My Church". He said "this rock". So the question is: What does "this" refer to? The most logical is Peter because Jesus just specifically identified him ("You are Peter") and it wouldn't make linguistic sense for Jesus to be referring to Himself.

Michael Hranek wrote:
In the context of these verses from the Sermon on the Mount is "The Rock" Jesus? or Peter?
Can you answer honestly?

Peter was the only Apostle given the keys to Heaven and the authority to forgive sins by Jesus. He also raised the dead and healed the sick. How many elders of the early Church can make those claims? Clearly, he wasn't just another elder. He was in a leadership position right from the Pentecost. No, they didn't use the term "Pope" then but he was Pope in all but name. SOMEONE had to lead this rag tag group of Christians.

That is not adding to or taking away from the Word of God. It is the FULLFILLMENT of Scripture. Jesus said "I will build my Church" and He did. By building His Church, many things that did not exist while He was here on earth were created under the direction of the Holy Spirit. That is VERY Biblical.

Michael,

just a thought wrote:
Bert,
... Our Lord Jesus said 'That thou art Peter, and upon this rock...'If Christ were to going to build His church on Peter, then He would have plainly said so; for instance, 'you are Peter, and upon YOU I will build my church'. He references to Peter because of the meaning of his name, 'a rock or a stone'. The Lord Jesus says 'upon THIS ROCK'. He is referring to the solid foundation, that foundation being Christ Himself.

John UK wrote:
And G1161 I say also G2504 G3004 unto thee, G4671 That G3754 thou G4771 art G1488 Peter, G4074 and G2532 upon G1909 this G5026 rock G4073 I will build G3618 my G3450 church; G1577 and G2532 the gates G4439 of hell G86 shall not G3756 prevail against G2729 it. G846
Matthew 16:18 KJV+ strongs
G4074 petros (piece of rock)
G4073 petra (mass of rock, feminine version of G4074)
I'm outta here

WayneM wrote:
Bert,
...Your eternal destiny depends on what you believe about Jesus and His Word...

WayneM wrote:
The RC church claims Jesus gave them authority to set up the system of Popes with absolute rule and a system of sacrifices, sacraments to give grace only through their priests. None of this is authorized in the Bible.

WayneM wrote:
If Jesus was referring to Peter in the second part of the verse, why didn't he use the word "petros" again?

If you looak at the translation in the pdf you provided the link for, it says for verse 18 "AND-I YET to-YOU AM-sayING that YOU ARE Peter (ROCK) AND ON this THE ROCK I-SHALL-BE-HOME-BUILDING OF-ME THE OUT-CALLED AND GATES OF-UN-PERCEIVED NOT SHALL-BE-DOWN-STRONG-ING OF-her". Notice that it says "Peter (ROCK)". There is no doubt that "Peter" means "rock". The only controversy I can see is whether or not Jesus was referring to Peter when He used the word "rock" the second time. When you consider that Peter's name was actually "Simon" and was renamed "Peter" by Jesus, it seems most likely that Jesus did, in fact, refer to Peter as "the rock".

I know what you mean. I have lost lots of stuff too

I have to admit that I have always had a difficult time with the Reformation. In Matt 16:17-19, Jesus proclaimed that He would build His Church on earth with St. Peter as its earthly leader. This Church became known as the Catholic Church. In verse 18, Jesus said "and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it". If what you say about the origins of the Reformation are true, then Jesus was wrong. That's why I have such a hard time with people's claims that the Vatican is satanic or idolatrous or any of the other nasty claims that are made. In order for ANY of those charges to be true, Jesus would have to be wrong. Sorry but I can't buy that.