Early Voting

So I went to cast my vote against socialism today (ha!), and lo and behold when I get there they have signs plastered all over the walls (ok, maybe not "plastered all over", but multiple signs) asking people not to talk, or voice any political opinions while waiting in line because of the "nature of this office". No hats, t-shirts, buttons, etc.

Ok, so what they're really saying here is: "As it is the nature of this office to encourage you to exercise your constitutional rights, we therefore require that you wave those same constitutional rights."

What a load of crap.

(And yes, I tucked my tail betwen my leggs and wordlessly complied.)

AJTC - Perpetual Virginity of Mary

The next thing that seems to have presented itself in my journey through Catholicism is the question of the perpetual virginity of Mary. I had been taught that Jesus had siblings, one brother named James at the very least. The Catholic position on this is that Mary was a perpetual virgin and maintained her virginity throughout her life, even after Christ was born. There are a couple things that Catholics use to support this.

The new testament word for brother is "adelphos" (#80) which means: "1) a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother, 2) having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman, 3) any fellow or man, 4) a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection, 5) an associate in employment or office, 6) brethren in Christa) his brothers by blood, b) all men, c) apostles, d) Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place." Therefore, theoretically, the various scripture verses that refer to the brothers of Jesus, could have in actuality been referring to his cousins or other kinsfolk.

Ezekiel 44:1-2 says:

"Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it was shut. Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut."

Some Catholics believe that this gate is symbolic of the virgin Mary, who was also from the east.

John 19:26-27 says:

"When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home."

This would have been quite unusual, and I am told unthinkable, if Christ had other siblings who were able to care for their widowed Mother.

Protestant Christians frequently point out that Christ is called the "firstborn" assuming that it implies that there must have been more than one child. It has also been pointed out that the Bible says that Joseph did not know Mary until she gave birth to Jesus, implying that he knew her after that.

Unfortunately I think both of these arguments are fallible. I have only one child, and he is my firstborn. In Exodus 13:2 God says:

"Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine."

This does not mandate that any additional children be born, only that the one who "openeth the womb," the first-born, is sanctified.

When most people think of the word "until" they compare it to the word "but." It's commonly used in the English language to show that there was a change of status. (I thought this was a good argument until I looked into it.) It does not, however, guarantee a change of status.

Condsider this example: If I tell my son that he may not go outside until his toys are picked up, that does not necessarily mean that he can play outside after his toys are picked up. Let's pretend we're doing LSAT questions w/ EarlCat... If not toys > not outside. To flip and negate: If outside > toys. In laymens terms, if he goes outside then he's picked up his toys. This does not equate that he absolutely will go outside if he's picked up his toys. On the contrary, he may have picked up his toys but taken so long that it got dark in the process... so he is still not allowed to play outside. It is necessary to pickup his toys, but not sufficient.

Ok, sorry about the tangent... I just wanted an excuse to do LAST games. Hope it was clear.

The word used for until is "heos" (Strongs #2193) which means: "of uncertain affinity; a conjunction, preposition and adverb of continuance, until (of time and place):--even (until, unto), (as) far (as), how long, (un-)til(-l), (hither-, un-, up) to, while(-s)." So in the New Testament, until typically does not signify a change of status, but rather a specific point in time. Take John 5:17 where Jesus says:

"My Father worketh hitherto [heos], and I work."

This certainly does not imply that they stoped working then, but rather that they were continuing to work even to the present time. In Psalm 110 it says:

"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until [heos] I make thine enemies thy footstool."

I could be wrong, but I do not think He is asking him to sit there only until he fetches a footstool. This would just be silly.

It is for these reasons I do not necessarily agree that these verses prove that Mary and Joseph had intercourse, and/or other children, after the birth of Jesus.

Although it may be accepted that several of scriptures that refer to "the brothers of Jesus" may be explained as referring to the cousins or near kinsmen of Jesus, I personally believe that any specifically named people who are called "the brothers of Jesus" should be able to have their biological relationship clarified... especially if they are not indeed the biological half-brothers of Jesus, and the sons of Mary. So this is where I am planning to focus my energy. Also, since people were generally listed in order of importance (ex: oldest siblings to youngest siblings), I am inclined to investigate them in that order.

If I remember correctly, there is a place which refers to James and John as the brothers of Jesus, but since James and John are the sons of Zebedee (Mark 1:19, Luke 5:10, etc) so I am not concerned with that (especially since I cannot seem to re-locate the scripture).

There are two places though where the names of the "brothers" of Jesus are listed that I am concerned with. Mark 6:3, and Matthew 13:55 state:

"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"

If these are not the brothers of Christ, the sons of Mary, who are they?

According to Wikipedia (1): "The identification of James son of Alphaeus with the brother of Jesus was.... widely accepted in the Roman Catholic Church, while Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches tend to distinguish between 'James son of Alphaeus' and 'James the brother of the Lord'."

I'm going to have to start a chart to keep track of every body here, but from what it looks like there was 1) Mary, the mother of Jesus, 2) Mary, the wife of Cleophas(aka Alpheus), 3) Mary Magdaline, 4) Salome, the wife of Zebedee and, 5) Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, and a follower of Jesus. For simplicity sake, we're not dealing with all of them, but keep in mind that they're there.

"Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene." (John 19:25)

So either Mary #1 had another sister present, or her "sister" was Mary # 2. (Keep in mind that "sister" has the same basic meaning as "brother." Strongs # 79.)

Here are some other listings of women by the cross:

"Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children." (Matthew 27:56)

"There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome." (Mark 15:40)

Although you could argue that Mary the mother of James and Joses, was Mary #1, the mother of Jesus, I find it very surprising that she would be identified by her other children at this time. Also, in Acts 1:13-14 it identifies a James and Judas, and possibly Simon, that were the sons of Alphaeus (Cleophas), the husband of a woman named Mary:

"And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren."

This, on top of the quotes from the early church that I mentioned in my last post "An Email to my Mother" are certainly worthy of checking into. It'll be interesting to see what I find, although I doubt I'll spend as much time on this topic as I did on Peter. Wish me luck!


Edit: There is a word for cousin. It is "syggenēs" (Strongs #4773), and used in Luke 1:36:

"And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren."

This word was used 12 times in the New Testament, and variously translated as kinsmen, cousin, kinsfolk and kin. If James, Judas and possibly Simon were the cousins of Jesus, then why wasn't this word used?
Also, to mix things up a little more here's a quote from Wikipedia:

"Joseph Blinzler, in his study Die Bruder und Schwestern Jesu, concluded that the "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus were cousins of his. For Simon and Jude, their relationship with Jesus came from their father Cleophas/Clopas, a brother of Joseph and thus a descendant of David. Their mother's name is unknown. The mother of James and Joses was a Mary, distinct from Jesus’ mother; she (or her husband) was related in some unspecifiable way to Jesus' family. There are indications that the father of James (and Joses) was of sacerdotal or Levitical origin and was a brother of Mary. The silence of the Gospels about Joseph after Luke 2 indicates that the putative father of Jesus died soon, after which Mary and her son joined the family of her (their?) closest relative. The children of this family (these families?), grew up with Jesus and were called his brothers and sisters, since in Aramaic there was no other term for them. The early Church kept this term even in Greek to honour in this way these relatives who had meanwhile become eminent members of the Church, and as a way of distinguishing them from the many others in the early Church that had the same names."

(1) See James, son of Alphaeus.

An Email to My Mother

So, you said to check out why Luther left the Catholic church.... I'm not sure why he left, but apparently he agreed w/ them on the immaculate conception of Mary, her perpetual virginity, and the real substance of the Eucharist. Three of the things I have the hardest time accepting. Check out these quotes. Cited for your comfort. (Like reading a THE Protestant reformer cite Catholic doctrine is going to be comforting! Haha..) Love ya. ;-)

"Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that." {Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

"Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers." {Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

"It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin." (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527).

"She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil." (Personal {"Little"} Prayer Book, 1522).

In 1529 Martin Luther engaged the question of transubstantiation in the famous conference at Marburg with Zwingli and other Swiss theologians; he maintained his view that Christ is present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist.

If you want to really get crazy, read the quotes below from a couple other Protestant "reformers" that you may recognize....

"Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned." - John Calvin, {Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}

"I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity." - Huldreich Zwingli, {Thurian, ibid., p.76 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}

"The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin." - John Wesley, {"Letter to a Roman Catholic" / In This Rock, Nov. 1990, p.25}

Anyways... Like I said, pray for me. Love ya,


PS.. Here's a copy of Luther's 95 Theses if you want to read them. Link.

AJTC - Quotes on The Succession of Peter

Here are some quotes I found from the early church and early "popes" regarding Peter, authority over the church, and apostolic succession. Enjoy.

"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labors], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwords believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

"There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter, who was bishop at that time. We cannot do better than to subjoin some passages from this epistle…In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement's epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: To-day we have passed the Lord's holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement.' Dionysius of Corinth, To Pope Soter (A.D. 171).

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who.....assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

"We are not to credit these men, nor go out from the first and the ecclesiastical tradition; nor to believe otherwise than as the churches of God have by succession transmitted to us." Origen, Commentary on Matthew (A.D. 244).

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

"Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid..." Pope Stephen I [regn. A.D. 254-257], Firmilian to Cyprian, Epistle 74/75:17 (A.D. 256).

"Therefore the power of remitting sins was given to the apostles, and to the churches which they, sent by Christ, established, and to the bishops who succeeded to them by vicarious ordination." Firmilian, To Cyprian, Epistle 75[74]:16 (A.D. 256).

"It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing... When Nero was in the eighth year of his reign, Annianus succeeded Mark the evangelist in the administration of the parish of Alexandria...Linus ...was Peter's successor in the episcopate of the church there...Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome." Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History,1:1,2:24, (A.D. 325).

Here is also a very partial (first 250 years AD) list of the Apostolic succession, just to show that this was a practice of the church from the very beginning, and was not initiated only after the first 300 years or so.(1)

1. St. Peter (32-67)
2. St. Linus (67-76)
3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4. St. Clement I (88-97)
5. St. Evaristus (97-105)
6. St. Alexander I (105-115)
7. St. Sixtus I (115-125) -- also called Xystus I
8. St. Telesphorus (125-136)
9. St. Hyginus (136-140)
10. St. Pius I (140-155)
11. St. Anicetus (155-166)
12. St. Soter (166-175)
13. St. Eleutherius (175-189)
14. St. Victor I (189-199)
15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
16. St. Callistus I (217-22)
17. St. Urban I (222-30)
18. St. Pontain (230-35)
19. St. Anterus (235-36)
20. St. Fabian (236-50)

From the following scripture it is obvious that even the very first apostles guided, directed, and set the guidelines for the church.

"For as much as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, [Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment." Acts 15:24

"And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem." Acts 16:4

Anyways, just a couple more things to think about in regards to Peter and Apostolic Succession. Maybe if you're lucky I'll actually come to some sort of a conclusion relatively soon and move on to another subject. If you're lucky, that is.



(1) For the rest of the list, go here.

AJTC - The Succession of Peter

A couple things to keep in mind when looking at the succession of Peter. First is the history, and precedence of a "seat" of authority in the Jewish religion. In the Old Testament Moses was probably the most well known leader of the Israelites, and he had leaders under him.(1) His position was filled by Joshua when he died.

"So the LORD said to Moses, "Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay your hand on him. Make him stand before Eleazar the priest and all the congregation, and you shall commission him in their sight. You shall invest him with some of your authority, that all the congregation of the people of Israel may obey." Numbers 27:18-20 (See also Deut. 34:9)

In Matthew 23, Jesus makes reference to this leadership position when He tells the multitudes that "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not." This is not the clearest sentence structure so you may want to clarify by using a few different versions(2), but basically what Jesus is saying here, is to respect the position that the Pharisees hold (they sit in "Moses' seat") and do what they bid you in spite of how they act.

If you read the rest of Matthew 23, it is quite obvious that Jesus absolutely despises the Pharisees. He spends the majority of the chapter vigorously warning and insulting them. He calls them blind guides, hypocrites, serpents, brood of vipers, etc. I don't remember anyone (with the exception of the money changers in the temple), receiving as much detestation from our Lord.

It's not because of who they are as people that Christ urged the people to obey them, but rather because of their position in leadership. Jesus did not state this as a request, but rather as an imperative command. He did not take pains to explain what he was saying, but rather seemed to assume that it was common knowledge that the Pharisees were occupying "Moses' seat." This would only be the case if it was also common knowledge that there was a successive seat of leadership which was passed down through the generations, much like the priesthood.(3) It is not unreasonable to assume then, that when Jesus spoke in Mathew 16:18 He was referring the transfer of authority in Isaiah 22:20-22. To further this point, you will see that Matthew 1:1 clearly establishes Jesus as a descendant of David. Jesus, by rights, is the King of the House of David, and will assign a chief steward to rule over the house while the He is in heaven.

Even Judas was in a successive seat that required someone to fill it after he had betrayed Christ. "For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms, 'May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it, and, May another take his place of leadership.'"(4) This was one of the first things Peter did after Christ's ascension.

If Peter, who was given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, was indeed chosen to replace the Pharisees (who already had a precedence of succession) in the new church that Jesus was establishing, and if even the betrayer of Christ had to have his chair filled, then how much more important would it have been for Peter to have successors to fill his position?


My Thoughts:

"Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still."




(1)Exodus 18:25-26
(2) I'm using KJV just so that no one can accuse me of falling into the trap of reading a mis-translated or inaccurate version of the Bible.
(3) Exodus 40:15, Numbers 3:3
(4) Acts 1:20

AJTC - More on Peter

A couple tidbits on Peter before we get into the scriptures and all that jazz... According to Scott Hahn:

"There is absolutely no archeological evidence from antiquity for anybody having been named Peter before Simon. In other words, Jesus was taking a word that had never been used as far as all the many records we have are concerned, never was used to designate an individual person and Jesus gives that name, gives that word to Simon."(1)

Also, according to Stephen K Ray:

"In the Torah and in Jewish tradition, a name change meant a change in status. Abraham, the father of the Jews who received the covenant sign of circumcision, had his name changed by God from Abram meaning "father", to Abraham meaning the "father of nations" (Gen 17:1-5).(2)

Keep in mind this is not the only place this happens. A couple other examples would be when God changes Jacob to Israel, Eliakim to Jehoiakim, and Saul to Paul.

Just something I thought was interesting. Now... It is also interesting to find that Peter is generally listed first among the apostles(3), and is sometimes the only one even named among the apostles, such as when the woman with an issue of blood touched Christ's robe and the collective group of disciples is referred to as "Peter and they that were with him"(4).

It was Peter alone who showed enough faith to step out onto the water when Christ appeared to the disciples during a storm at sea (Matthew 14:28), it was Peter who spoke up on behalf of the disciples asking for clarification on Jesus' teaching (Matthew 15:15), it was Peter who first proclaimed Jesus as the Christ, son of the living God (Matthew 16:16), and it was Peter to whom Christ gave the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 16:19). And that's just in three chapters!

Peter was often the one that spoke up offering suggestions or, was recognized as taking a leadership role among the disciples(5). In Matthew 26:40, when the Peter and the sons of Zebedee had fallen asleep in the garden instead of helping Christ keep watch it was Peter alone that he held accountable.

In Matthew 17:24-25 it is Peter that the tax collector approaches for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus Christ.

It is Peter who is charged to "strengthen his brethren" in Luke 22:32.

After Jesus had risen, Peter and "that other disciple, whom Jesus loved" ran to the tomb. The other disciple arrived first, but waited for Peter and did not go in. After Peter came and entered the tomb, then the disciple who arrived first also entered (John 20:4-8). This is a very common sign of respect.

In John 21:15, in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these," which refers to the other apostles and then three times charges him to "feed my sheep."

In Acts 1:15-26 Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn't it need one to Peter?

During the story of Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), it was Peter who the took the offering, who had the administrative role, and who announced the consequence of death for "lying to the holy spirit."

In Acts 5:15 it says that "They brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid [them] on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them." It was not so that the disciples shadows could pass over them, but Peter specifically. It was also Peter who took told the poor beggar "silver and gold have I none, but such as I have I will give you."

Simon recognized the authority of Peter when Peter cast judgment on him, and asked Peter to intercede to the Lord on his behalf so that "none of these things which ye have spoken come upon [him]" in Acts 8 17-24.

It was Peter who was given the vision from God telling him to admit gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-48), which could have been quite scandalous considering the relationship that Jews had with the gentiles. It was unlawful according to Peter who says in Acts 10:28 "Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." But there was not even a disagreement among the apostles when they heard these things. In fact Acts 11:18 says that they "held their peace, and glorified God."

Later on, when the subject of circumcision came up and "there had been much disputing," Peter stood up to speak, and after he spoke "then all the multitude kept silence." Peter's stance on the issue ended the debate. There was no one who questioned him (Acts 15:7-12).

When Christ rose from the dead, it is said that he first appeared to Peter, then to the twelve, and then to about 500 people at once. (1 Corinthians 15:5-6)

According to Galatians 1:18-19 Paul spent fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's revelation to Paul, but some of the other disciples he did not see at all with the exception of James.

In 1 Peter 5:1, Peter fulfills a leadership role by writing to the other elders of the Church, exhorting and encouraging them to "feed the flock of God."

And just to make sure I'm not merely being one-sided in the way I present this, let's check to see how often each of disciples are mentioned by name. (Yes, I know, some of them are not mentioned where they're not specifically named but we're just trying to get a ball-park figure here.) Peter was named 162 times, James (son of Zebedee) 21, John (the apostle) 36, Andrew 13, Philip 16, Nathanael/Bartholomew 10, Thomas 12, James (son of Alphaeus) 16, Thaddaeus/Lebbaeus 3, Simon (Zelotes) 4, and Judas 11. So, all the other apostles combined were named less than Peter. 142 times to be exact. Just something to think about.

ScriptureCatholic.com has some excellent points in their page entitled "The Church," some of which I have decided to include here.

2 Sam. 22:2-3, 32, 47; 23:3; Psalm 18:2,31,46; 19:4; 28:1; 42:9; 62:2,6,7; 89:26; 94:22; 144:1-2 - in these verses, God is also called "rock." Hence, from these verses, non-Catholics often argue that God, and not Peter, is the rock that Jesus is referring to in Matt. 16:18. This argument not only ignores the plain meaning of the applicable texts, but also assumes words used in Scripture can only have one meaning. This, of course, is not true. For example:

1 Cor. 3:11 - Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock. These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.

.....Matt. 16:17 - to further demonstrate that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, Jesus says Simon "Bar-Jona." The use of "Bar-Jona" proves that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, "Bar" means son, and "Jonah" means John or dove (Holy Spirit). See Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34 which give another example of Jesus speaking Aramaic as He utters in rabbinical fashion the first verse of Psalm 22 declaring that He is the Christ, the Messiah. This shows that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, as the Jewish people did at that time.

Matt. 16:18 - also, in quoting "on this rock," the Scriptures use the Greek construction "tautee tee" which means on "this" rock; on "this same" rock; or on "this very" rock. "Tautee tee" is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”

Matt. 16:18-19 - in addition, to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter's leadership in the Church. This is a three-fold blessing of Peter - you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom).

Matt. 16:18-19 – to further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: Blessed are “you” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “you,” and I tell “you,” “you” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith.

Also, when Christ gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew 16:19, he is believed to be quoting a well-known scripture, Isaiah 22:22, in which a transfer of authority and expectation of succession is give. But we'll cover that on another day.





1. Scott Hahn on the Papacy. Here.
2. From his book "Upon This Rock: St Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church. Here.
3. Matthew 10:2, Mark 3:16, Luke 6:14-16
4. Luke 8:45, Mark 1:36, Acts 2:37, 5:29
5. Matthew 17:4 & 24, 19:27,

A Journey Through Catholicism - Peter

I decided to go back and take a committed look at Catholicism again this year with the intention of coming to some definite conclusions, and I am currently going through the RCIA process again. The only thing that scares me is that, from what I've found so far, the conclusion that I may come to... is that I don't know. But, we're going to try. And each issue that I research I am planning to blog here as I generally forget things that I don't take the time to write down.

The first issue I have started looking into is Peter and the Papacy. Three of the best sources I've come across so far are Scott Hahn's(1) "Answering Common Objections" audio series, the website ScriptureCatholic.com, and the Strong's Concordance online.

The basic view of the Catholic Church is that Peter was the original "Pope" (Although not by that name until much later), and was given that authority in Matthew 16:18 where Christ states that "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church."

The Protestants disagree because the New Testament was written in Greek, and in the Greek language it says "You are Petros, and upon this petra I will build my church." They point out the difference between the words "petros" and "petra" as the foundation for believing it was not Peter that Christ was going to build his church upon (although there seems to be some disagreement as to whether he was using the word petra to refer to Christ Himself, or statement of faith that Peter just made).

There seem to be two main arguments they use to support this point, as follows:

1. The difference in the words themselves. Petros, they say, implies a small stone while petra means a large mass of rock or foundation. Christ was refering to Peter as a small stone, as part of the large foundation (which was either Christ, or Peter's statment of faith depending on the interpretation) that Christ was going to build his Church upon. Petra is also the feminine version of the Greek word rock.

2. The sentence structure. "For example, the first noun (petros) is without the definite article (“the” in the Greek) while the second (petra) is with it... Petros refers to “thou”, of blessed art thou Simon Barjona; and Petra is the “it”, of flesh and
blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father in heaven. Grammatically, this is the nearest antecedent."(2)

Firstly, if you go back to the Strongs Concordance and look up the definitions for the word "rock" you will find several listings. Among them are:

petros (4074) which is "apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than 3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:--Peter, rock." It's Biblical usage being exclusively: "1) one of the twelve disciples of Jesus."

petra (4073) meaning: "feminine of the same as 4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively):--rock." It's biblical usage being "1) a rock, cliff or ledge, a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground, b) a rock, a large stone, c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul."

And.. This number 3037 that petros refers to:

"lithos" which according to Strongs is "apparently a primary word; a stone (literally or figuratively):--(mill-, stumbling-)stone." It's Biblical usage is "1) a stone, a) of small stones, b) of building stones, c) metaph. of Christ"

In order to come to a better understanding of these words, let's look at how they're used. The word petros is used 162 times in the New Testament, all of which are speaking directly of Peter. The word petra is used 16 times, translated only as "rock." Lithos is used 60 times and is translated various ways, often referring to stones, mill stones, building stones, or even as a metaphor for Christ himself.

Since petros is used exclusively as Peter's name(3), then the most accurate word to use in the 2nd half of the sentence would be petra since it is the normal word for "rock" and "of the same as [petros]," and was often used to mean foundation stone, such as in the parable about the wise and foolish builder(4). They could also have used the word Lithos as it could mean building stone, but it was also used multiple times of a metaphor of Christ(5). It is the same word that is used in Luke 20:17 when it talks about "the stone that the builders rejected.." Lithos then, would have been a great choice if the translators believed that Christ was referring to himself as the rock. From what I can find, I don't believe that is what they were trying to imply.

Please bear in mind that Jesus was speaking in Aramaic, and there is only one word in Aramaic for rock. It is the word cephas. So what Jesus actually said in the original language was "You are Cephas, and upon this cephas I will build my church." If He had wanted to differentiate between the two, He would have had to make that additionally clear.

Secondly, if you know me then you know I am absolutely ignorant when it comes to grammatical rules for the English language, and all the more so in Greek, but it seems logical to me that the word "this" was inserted for clarification. Without "this" word (cheesy pun intended), it would have read "You are [Rock], and upon [rock] I will build my church." This seems to be a little vague or ambiguous. Would Christ have been talking about Peter the "rock" specifically, or just any rock?

With the insertion of the word "this," it specifies which rock Jesus is talking about. "This," as pointed out by our friend Randall Paquette generally refers to the nearest antecedent. It just so happens that the last rock that Jesus referred to was Peter.


My Thoughts:

It could be interpreted either way depending on which aspects of the debate a person decided to argue, and there have been many scholars on both sides who view it both ways. Scott Hahn quoted protestant scholar RT France who says in relation to Matthew 16:18:

"It describes not so much Peter's character, that is the Rock. He did not prove to be rock-like in terms of stability or reliability but rather the name Rock or Peter points to his function as the foundation stone of Jesus' Church."

And W. F. Albright, who says in his Anchor Bible Commentary on Matthew:

"Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter."(6)

Randall Paquette responded by quoting a saying from Pope Leo the Great, which was used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, saying:

"Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church."(7)

So It seems that it is often interpreted both ways by people on both sides of the debate. I am not particularly adverse even to the idea that there could have been a duel meaning intended. I am not saying that this is correct either, but it is a possibility. If I had to pick a side for argument sake, then I think the trump card goes to the Catholics because there is no differentiation between Peter and the rock upon which Christ will build his church in the original language.

Bear in mind this is only one scripture, and, in my personal opinion, not enough to base a doctrine off of. I am sure there will be much more to come.




1. Scot Hahn was a Protestant Minister who converted to Catholicism and is a very popular speaker on apologetics and theology. Bibliography Here.
2. The Deception of Scott Hahn by Randall Paquette. Here.
3. There is only once where petra is not translated as Peter. It is in John 1:42 where it gives the meaning of Peter's name as "rock."
4. Found in Matthew 7, and Luke 6.
5. See Matthew 21:42-44, Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17-18, and 1 Peter 2:4-8.
6. See Scott Hahn on the Papcy. Here.
7. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 424.