In a message dated 10/15/2009 12:20:47 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
(John 1:42) “And he brought him to Jesus. 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.” Um, Brother Eli ... what translation are you using? The New World Jehovah's Witnesses version? Aramaic has one word for "bedrock" or "boulder" and that is kepha - transliterated into Greek - Cephas. In the Gospel of John there is no article "ho" before the word "cephas" so adding the indefinite "a" is a fabricated mistranslation. You go on a great deal about the title "pope" and you ought to know that all bishops were called "pope" until the Bishop or Rome decided it wd be his title alone, sometime in the 900s. Pardon me for not being exact. The title is not the problem with you, as well you know. It is the power and authority that troubles you, the concept that a man can be like God, or take the place of God, isn't that the way you read the title "vicar of Christ"? If you will allow me to point you to Isaiah 22:20-25 you will find a neat little parallel to the famous declaration by Jesus to Simon bar Jona in Matt 16:17-19. Just as Eliakim was not made "king" but acted as his first minister, according to Isaiah, so Peter is not God, but acts as God's regent or, better, viceroy. I hope you know the word viceroy. It is an official who is made a minister plenipotentiary by a monarch, that is, the official is given the authority by a sovereign to act for him in a colony or among subjects residing in a foreign territory. The parallel is exact. Peter took charge of the early Church only after the Ascension of Jesus, and remained the leader in Jerusalem until about AD 42 when he became an escaped felon miraculously freed by an angel after being condemned by King Herod Agrippa I. He left, as Luke says in Acts 12:17 with great delicacy, "for another place." From Paul's letter to the Galatians, we know that place was Antioch. If you look at the patriarchal churches, they all have some relation to Peter. Rome was always accorded the primacy of honor. After Rome, Alexandria held pride of place, since Peter had sent Mark the Evangelist there to found the Church. Antioch was the third patriarchal see in precedence because Peter had lead the Church there before going to Rome where he died. By the 300s Jerusalem was raised to the rank of a patriarchal see. It might have been done earlier except that Jerusalem was defeated by Titus in AD 70 and, more decisively, by the Emperor Ælus Hadrian in AD 135 after which all Jews were forbidden to reside there. The name of the city was changed to Ælia Capitolina by which it was known for several centuries. Constantinople or "New Rome" as the residents enjoyed calling the city, did not become a patriarchal see until the late 400s when they claimed that Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, had evangelized the area. Brother Eli, may I suggest in future that you choose an argument about the Catholic Church with which you are more familiar and then be sure you have the facts straight? Blessings, Sean --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Please note that I do not send or open attachments sent to this list. You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Catholics on Fire" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Catholics-on-Fire May the blessing of Jesus and our Blessed Mother be with you -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
