From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: Church and Rome
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 18:56:06 GMT

In article <BtvMr7.K1A@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>>   This statement puzzles me, because the Scriptures tell us that
>>basically the opposite happened.  That is, the Apostles were sent out
>>to the various lands to spread the Gospel.  Having established the
>>various churches, they remained in consultation with one another.
>
>	"Therefore those who had been scattered	went about preaching 
>the word." (Acts 8:4 NASB)

   What about the very same chapter of Acts, 8:14-15: "When the
apostles in Jerusalem learned that Samaria had welcomed the message of
God, they sent them Peter and John, who, on coming down there, prayed
for the believers to receive the Holy Spirit..."?  Why was it
necessary for Apostles (whose successors are today's bishops) to be
present for the new Christians to receive the Holy Spirit?  The answer
is that there was a hierarchy even during the time of the Apostles.
   
>>   The churches didn't just spring up out of nowhere; they were
>>started by the apostles sent to each respective land.  This means that
>>since the leaders of the various churches were part of the same group
>>(the Apostles and disciples), they were never in isolation from one
>>another, and so could not "band together" (i.e. you cannot join what
>>is not separated).
>
>	"And on that day a great persecution arose against the church 
>in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of 
>Judea and Samaria, *except* the apostles" (Acts 8:1b)
>
>	"Therefore those who had been scattered	(i.e., except the 
>apostles) went about preaching the word." (Acts 8:4) 

   As I have shown above, these quotes do not contradict my assertion
that there was a hierarchy during the days of the Apostles.  What the
Bible does show in these cases is that those with special authority
were sent to "finish the job" when new churches were started.  When a
bishop wasn't sent to stay as leader of such a new church (which was
usually started by those the Apostles had sent in the first place),
these authorities ordained priests and bishops to oversee them.  The
point is that THE AUTHORITY of the churches came from Christ THROUGH
THE APOSTLES.

   Also, how do you explain the various epistles from Peter and Paul
(both in Rome) to the various churches and their bishops, which give
instructions "from Rome"?  It should be obvious that these churches
were _not_ independent, and that the Apostles were continually giving
them instruction.

>>   The primacy of the See of Rome is actually that of the See of
>>Peter.  This is because Peter was the leader of the Apostles, as
>>Scripture always places him first among the Apostles, as do the
>>historical writings of the early Church.  
>
>	James seems to be the leader of the council in Jerusalem in 
>Acts 15, and Paul corrected Peter's errors in Galatians. 

   Well, James was Bishop of Jerusalem, the see in which the Council
was held.  When an admiral is aboard his flagship, the captain is
still in command of the ship.  Regardless, I still don't see anything
showing James to be the leader of the Church over Peter.  What I do
see, however, is _Peter_ standing up first among the Apostles in
15:7-11.  James speaks in 15:13-21 in agreement with Peter's words.

>>   Sometimes Protestants will also say that the second "rock" Jesus
>>spoke of in the above passage refers to Himself.  This is not the
>>case.  The standard Protestant argument is that in the Greek, the
>>first "Peter" is "Petros," while the second "rock" is "petra".  First
>>of all, when this saying was translated _into_ Greek, it would have
>>been improper to call Peter "Petra," as that is a woman's name.  So
>>the masculine "Peter" was used instead.
>
>	I don't know about Protestants, but it seems that the 
>revelation that Peter gave was the rock on which the church was built.
>The rock of revelation...

   This has been rehashed enough here that I'll just assume we agree
to disagree on this one.

>>   Furthermore, notice I said "translated _into_ Greek"; Jesus did not
>>speak these words in Greek -- He spoke in Aramaic, and in Aramaic the
>>only word for "rock" is "kepa".  Therefore, He said, "Thou art Kepa,
>>and on this kepa I shall build my church," i.e. Jesus used the same
>>word in both places.
>
>	What Aramaic text are you quoting from here? 

   There doesn't have to be an Aramaic text.  We know that Jesus spoke
in Aramaic, not Greek.  This means His spoken words were in Aramaic,
e.g. "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?"  Therefore, He could not have used
different words for "rock" when He spoke, because there was only one
word for "rock" in the language in which He spoke.

   We know that the Gospel According to Matthew was written originally
in Aramaic, but translated into Greek.  The Aramaic for rock is kepa,
or kepha (depending on how you transliterate the alphabet).  Aramaic,
like English, does not have inflection of nouns.  That is, a noun is
always spelled the same, whether it is used as a subject, an object,
or what-have-you.  Greek, however, like German and Latin, _is_
inflected, as well as having gender of nouns.  This means that a noun
is spelled differently in Greek, depending on where the noun is used
in the sentence.

   Now like English and most other languages, a proper name in Greek
is either masculine or feminine, depending on whether it is given to a
male or a female.  For example, the English Stephen/Stephanie,
Robert/Roberta, etc. and the Greek Petros/Petra.

  Now if Simon Peter had been a woman, we wouldn't have this
misunderstanding.  Jesus would have said, "Simone, daughter of Jonah,
you are _Petra_, and on this _petra_ I will build my Church."
However, Simon Peter was a man, so Jesus had to say, "Simon, son of
Jonah, you are _Petros_, and on this _petros_ I will build my Church."
In neither case would the "Rock" have a meaning different than the
"rock."

   In French, there is no such problem either: "Simon, fils de Jonah,
tu es Pierre, et sur cette pierre je batisserais mon Eglise," if I can
still remember my French.

   Well, it looks like I rehashed this even more, but I don't think
there should be any doubt, given all this, that the "Petros/petra"
difference, since it is required by the grammar of Greek, is _not_
proof of any shade of meanings intended by Christ.

>>people that banded together."  I do hear this argument fairly often
>>from many Protestants, but have never really taken the time to
>>challenge it before.
>
>	What's a Protestant?

   Good point.  What I mean here by "Protestants" are those Christians
who reject the Apostolic Church (i.e. Apostolic Succession).

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia