The Encyclopaedia Brittanica says > The claims that the church of Rome was founded by Peter or that he served as its first bishop are in dispute and rest on evidence that is not earlier than the middle or late 2nd century. Where in the Bible does it say that Peter was a Bishop? Also, are there any non-biblical 1st-century historical accounts that mention his being the Bishop of Rome?

**Premise** 1Cor 8:6 KJV > But to us there is but one **God, the Father**, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 1Tim 1:17 >Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, **the only God**, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. Romans 15:6 NASB >so that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the **God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ**. Ephesians 4:6 KJV >One **God and Father** of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. 2 Timothy 1:3 >I thank **God**, whom I serve with a pure conscience, **as my forefathers did**, as without ceasing I remember you in my prayers night and day, **Question** ***Who do Trinitarians understand Paul's God to be?***

The most famous use of Peter/rock is **Matthew 16:18**: > And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock … But it was long before that, when Simon first met Jesus, that he was given the Peter/Cephas nickname in **John 1:42**: > … And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. Without referring to the later events in Matthew 16, are there any published scholarly or doctrinal explanations for why Jesus gave Simon that particular nickname as soon as he met him? ## Note: - I'm not interested in explanations based on Matthew 16. - I'm not asking what *you* think is the reason.

I have been discussing Matthew 16:18 for years now with both Catholics and non-Catholics. This verse is obviously a very important verse concerning the doctrine of the Bishop of Rome being Supreme Pontiff. The non-Catholic argument that I come up against time and time again is the "play on words" interpretation summed up pretty well here . I understand that, according to this interpretation, Jesus calls himself "big rock," and calls Peter "small rock." > Looking up the original Greek I see that Jesus is referring to two > types of rocks and one is related to the other, but they are not the > same. > > Peter = Πέτρος, Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone > (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. > > Rock = pétra (a feminine noun) – "a mass of connected rock” The accepted answer goes on to say... > This revelation, being from God, is infallible, and if the Church is > built upon it, it can never fall. Simon was named petros because he > was the **archetype**, the first (of his contemporaries at least) to have > received this personal revelation from God. I've also heard other interpretations that place the "Rock-ness," if you will, on Peter's faith. The answer above labels Peter as an "archetype" for those *individuals* with faith, or those *individuals* who receive infallible revelations. I think this reads to much into it when considering the context of scripture, and is perhaps a presupposition. Obviously Catholics believe that Christ, by changing Simon's name to Peter, established a foundational office of headship upon which the "Keys to the Kingdom of God" rests until his return. Catholics believe that *that* change signified a newly established office, and is *why* Christ changed Simon the fisherman to Peter the fisher of men to begin with. > "The keys of the kingdom" > > 551 From the beginning of his public life Jesus chose certain men, > twelve in number, to be with him and to participate in his mission.280 > He gives the Twelve a share in his authority and 'sent them out to > preach the kingdom of God and to heal."They remain associated for > ever with Christ's kingdom, for through them he directs the Church: > >> As my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you that >> you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones >> judging the twelve tribes of Israel. > > 552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; > Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the > Father, Peter had confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the > living God." Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on > this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not > prevail against it."Christ, the "living Stone",thus assures > his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. > Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable > rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every > lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it. > > 553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you > the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth > shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be > loosed in heaven."The "power of the keys" designates authority to > govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good > Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my > sheep."The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to > absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make > disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority > to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in > particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he > specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom. (*CCC 551-553*) My question is, from a non-Catholic point of view, why did Jesus choose "Rock" as a name for Peter in the first place? Answering whether or not Peter is called big rock or little rock doesn't answer why Jesus called him a rock - of any size. I'm wanting to know *why* exactly non-Catholics believe Christ changed Peter's name (rock...big or small), and what does it signify in comparison to what the Catholic Church teaches .

Jesus, being divine, is portrayed in the Gospels as knowing the hearts and thoughts of men (John 2:25, Matthew 9:4). In the Garden of Gethsemane, Peter draws a sword (or knife) and cuts off the ear of the high priest's servant (John 18:10), only to be rebuked by Jesus and told to put it away (Matthew 26:52). Given that Jesus had divine foreknowledge and perfect awareness of His surroundings, why did He allow Peter to carry or hide the knife in the first place? Was Jesus allowing this act to happen as part of a prophetic fulfillment or a deeper lesson on violence and obedience? Or does this highlight something about the tension between human zeal and divine purpose? How do Christian theologians and commentators interpret this moment in light of Jesus’ omniscience?

In Galatians 2:11–14, Paul recounts a moment when he publicly opposed Peter (Cephas) in Antioch. The issue appears to involve Peter's withdrawal from eating with Gentile believers when certain Jewish Christians arrived. Paul accuses Peter and others of hypocrisy and not acting "in step with the truth of the gospel." >"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned..." (Gal. 2:11–14, ESV) Was Peter teaching or promoting heresy here, or was Paul's confrontation about inconsistent behavior rather than false doctrine? How have various Christian traditions historically interpreted this passage, especially regarding apostolic authority and church unity?

There were some bone fragments found under St. Peter's Basilica in the 1940's. Pope Paul VI said in 1968 that the bones were "identified in a way that we can consider convincing." What is the convincing argument that these bones are indeed's St. Peter's? A perfect answer will include the details about how the bones were found. ___ On a related note, the bones have recently been made available for public viewing for the first time . During a Mass, Pope Francis seemed to venerate the relics, which may mean that the Church will officially declare them as St. Peter's bones.

From this link , the word hypocrite is rooted in the Greek word hypokrites, which means “stage actor, pretender, dissembler.” So think of a hypocrite as **a person who pretends to be a certain way, but really acts and believes the total opposite**. From this wiki about the Pharisee's hypocrisy, it's easier for me to understand it. For example, point 5 on that page says: > They presented an appearance of being 'clean' (self-restrained, not > involved in carnal matters), yet they were dirty inside. In Galatians, Paul refers to Peter as a hypocrite: > When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. *Galatians 2:11-13 (NIV)* But I can't figure out in what way Peter is being a hypocrite. He could be being a hypocrite by claiming not to force gentiles to obey Jewish laws, while actually making them do exactly that. But that would seem to contradict his experience with Cornelius, which show he wouldn't force gentiles to obey jewish law. Alternatively, he could be claiming we do need to force gentiles to follow jewish customs, while actually not believe that was true. But in that case, there would be no reason for him to be scared of the circumsision group, since outwardly he appeared to agree with them. Since neither of these seem correct, how is Peter being a hypocrite, according to Paul?

***Who do Trinitarians understand Peter's God to be?*** ------ **Premise** Acts 3:13 NKJV (Peter speaking) > The **God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob**, the God of our fathers, glorified **His servant Jesus**, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go. Acts 2:22 >Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a **man** approved of **God** among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which **God** did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 1Peter 1 >3 Blessed be the **God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ**, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, >4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, >5 Who are kept by the power of **God** through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. > Matthew 16:16 >And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, **the Son of the living God**. Psalm 84:2 > My soul longs, yes, even faints For the courts of **YHWH**; My heart and my flesh cry out for **the living God.**

What were the ages of the Apostles Peter and John when Jesus was crucified? What I’ve heard is Peter was about the same age as Jesus (30-33), while John was an older teenage, approximately 18. This makes sense in the passages: >When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. (John 19:26–27, ESV) A teenager along with women would be less threatened being present at the crucifixion. >Both of them were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first (John 20:4, ESV) For men who were not athletes, you would expect an 18 year old to outrun a 30 year old. > Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who also had leaned back against him during the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?” (John 21:20–21, ESV) Jesus had told Peter to feed his sheep. Usually younger brothers were given the task of taking care of the literal sheep. Peter had to get used to the idea that shepherds (pastors) were elders. What other evidence to we have for the ages of Peter and John at the crucifixion.

At the end of the Gospel of Mark, the boy in the tomb tells the women to give a message to "[Jesus's] disciples AND Peter" (Mark 16:7). Nowhere else in Mark is any apostle "separated" from the word "disciples" and Peter, the "leader" of the disciples, is given second billing. What, if any, are the official church explanations for this unusual language?

During a Bible discussion for seekers last week, one of them asked a question that led me to ponder this questions. As I understand it, the body of Moses (not Elijah since he never died) should still have been in the grave at the time of the Transfiguration of Jesus--and would be pretty decomposed at that point. However, his spirit (and probably souls) would have been in Paradise at that time--still separated from his body until the resurrection at the last day. > And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James, and John his > brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 And he was > transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his > clothes became white as light. 3 And behold, there appeared to them > Moses and Elijah, talking with him. Matthew 17:1-3 ESV If that is true, then what exactly did Peter, James and John see on the Mount of Transfiguration? Did they see the spirit of Moses? Can our spirits be seen with physical eyes? Were the disciples perhaps allowed to see spiritual things as Elisha appears to have done in 2 Kings 6? > When the servant of the man of God rose early in the morning and went > out, behold, an army with horses and chariots was all around the city. > And the servant said, “Alas, my master! What shall we do?” He said, > “Do not be afraid, for those who are with us are more than those who > are with them.” Then Elisha prayed and said, “O Lord, please open > his eyes that he may see.” So the Lord opened the eyes of the young > man, and he saw, and behold, the mountain was full of horses and > chariots of fire all around Elisha. 2 Kings 6:15-17 ESV As a side note, the rich man and Lazarus presumably "saw" each other as well. I'm looking for the Protestant understanding of this.

I was reading the Office of Readings this morning and the reading was from the beginning of Habakkuk (assuming I'm on the right week, which I might not be). In any event, it was the first chapter of a book I'd never really paid much attention to and I was reflecting on it and it seemed to draw out a lot of motif's from the life of St. Peter 1. He scoffs at kings (when St. Peter says that Jesus shouldn't go to Jerusalem or wash his feet) 2. He gathers fish, like men 3. He is the rock readied for punishment (although Rock refers to God in _this_ passage) 4. He brandishes the sword and might have slayed without mercy. 5. He was the rash man, but was justified because of his faith. I don't see any intertext references in the New American Bible that suggest it, but I couldn't help but see it this morning and was wondering if there was anything to it.

Within the context of 14-18 >14 Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. Q: What, if any, significance is conveyed by the appellative "our beloved brother Paul?"
Q: What wisdom is given to Paul?
Q: What are "these matters" Paul speaks of?
Q: What things are hard to understand?
Q: Who is ignorant and unstable?
Q: From the statement "knowing this beforehand," what "this" do we know?
Q: What is the error of lawless people?
Q: Is parsing this passage so granularly an example of twisting things to our destruction, i.e, is self-awareness dead?
Q: Does the remainder of the chapter 3 (or the first two chapters) provide additional context for understanding the final words in verses 14 to 18? **Chapter 3** >1 This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2 that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, 3 knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 4 They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. 7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. >8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. >11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, 12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! 13 But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

The verses read like this: >13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. [[NIV](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16&version=NIV)] I am familiar with how Catholics interpret this passage and often quote it as the reason the Papacy exists and is ordained by Jesus himself. However, the verse is perplexing to me because it does seem to imply some sort or emphasis on Peter being special to the Church, but Protestants reject the Papal authority, so how would they interpret this passage? I am looking for the answer that speaks from most Protestants, since I think most Protestants agree that the Papacy does not have the authority it claims. Perhaps if Martin Luther or another famous reformer had anything to say on it would be good.

Going by the List of Popes at Catholic Encyclopedia one finds that the name John has been most popular among the incumbents to the position. But what is intriguing is that no Pope after the first one adopted the name Peter which in fact, had been given to Simon by the Lord himself. Is there any reason for the same?

> Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? - 1 Corinthians 1:10-13 It is certain that Cephas, here, is the Apostle Peter (John 1:42). In Paul's chastisement of the Corinthian believer's "contentions" he lists 4 names that they are claiming to be "of". He outright eliminates himself from the list but, if he recommends any name on the list, it is not Cephas (Peter) but Christ. A natural reading of verse 13 looks like this: *Is Christ divided? Was Paul (or Apollos or Cephas) crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul (or Apollos or Cephas)?* How do proponents of the primacy of Peter reckon with Paul apparently placing Peter and Apollos on equal footing here? Why does Paul give no hint of any special status for Peter over either himself or Apollos when attempting to correct divisions in the Church?

Consider: (1) Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? *Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.* (Matt. 16:15-16.) (Italics added.) (2) Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him: *Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.* (John 6:68-69.) (Italics added.) (3) Then Peter answering, said to Him: *Behold we have left all things, and have followed Thee: what therefore shall we have?* (Matt. 19:27.) (Italics added.) (4) And Peter said to Him: *Lord, dost thou speak this parable to us, or likewise to all?* (Luke 12:41) (Italics added.) (5) Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren? But Peter said to them: *Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.* (Acts 2:37-38.) (Italics added.) QUESTION: Does anyone know of a complete list of occasions in the New Testament where St. Peter speaks on behalf of *all* the Apostles?

The Roman Catholic church claims that the apostle Peter was the first bishop of Rome, that he was the leader of the other apostles/bishops, and that since the pope is the rightful heir of Peter's title (according to the Church), the pope would also be the leader of the bishops. What is the biblical basis for this claim? Does the Church take any specific verse as evidence for this claim?

I have been told that Peter could not read or write. Mark wrote all of Peters’s stories and scriptures. How can I determine if this true?