Who is an apostle? Are their still apostles?

The origional apostles, that were sent forth by Christ himself, have passed from this world. Catholics believe that those first apsotles, the men given authority by Christ, handed off their authority by the laying on of hands, to other men before they died. An example of this is Paul installing Timothy into the leadership of the Church.

Peace

Was Paul handing over his position as Apostle to Timothy or was he teaching him to be a good evangelist? Can you demonstrate from the scriptures anywhere where this shown, that Timothy became an apostle?

What are the qualifications of an Apostle?

On a separate but related note, do you consider yourself a wise and noble person, one of Christ, a true follower?

If so, how do you know? If not, why?

Q.
Was Paul handing over his position as Apostle to Timothy or was he teaching him to be a good evangelist? Can you demonstrate from the scriptures anywhere where this shown, that Timothy became an apostle?

A.
Catholics feel that Paul, knowing that his own death was near, was giving Timothy the office of a bishop or an apostolic delegate, and teaching him to be a good evangelist.

Q.
What are the qualifications of an Apostle?

A.
Catholics feel that the title of apostle was reserved to the twelve that Christ choose and was also given to a few others by the apostles themselves, as an honorary title.
So the qualification it seems, is to be chosen as one of the twelve.

Q.
On a separate but related note, do you consider yourself a wise and noble person, one of Christ, a true follower?
If so, how do you know? If not, why?

A.
I consider myself a sinner in need of a savior. I am far from perfect, but do attempt to live a righteous life. As far as wise..well let me just say that wisdom is something I regularly pray for because wisdom would be helpful in leading the type of life that would be pleasing to God.


Peace

I am here to prove the Word of God to be superior to anything that mankind thinks on His own and to show how God's Word does not change but man's doctrine does over time. But, let me say that Gods Word will prove itself who is right, God or man.


So what you are saying is that Peter is the rock that the church is founded on?

__________________
Romans 16:16 1 Thess. 5:17 1 Thess. 5:22 1 Tim. 6:12 2 Tim 2:15

ok


Yes, Catholics do believe that Peter is the rock that Christ was refering to in Matthew 16:18

So that rock would have to have been unshakable and an unmovable rock, wouldn't it?

__________________
Romans 16:16 1 Thess. 5:17 1 Thess. 5:22 1 Tim. 6:12 2 Tim 2:15

In the respect that the Catholic Church still stands? If so, yes.

Then it is a shaken foundation as Peter denied Christ even though he said that he would stand with Him through death as ALL the apostles and other followers that were with Him. Interesting what this "unshaken and unmovable rock" that your church is founded upon did, isn't it?

Mat 26:56 But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.
Mat 26:57 And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.
Mat 26:58 But Peter followed him afar off unto the high priest's palace, and went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end.

...and of course...

Mat 26:69 Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.
Mat 26:70 But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest.
Mat 26:71 And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth.
Mat 26:72 And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man.
Mat 26:73 And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee.
Mat 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
Mat 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

__________________
Romans 16:16 1 Thess. 5:17 1 Thess. 5:22 1 Tim. 6:12 2 Tim 2:15

Mr. White, I believe you are putting the cart in front of the horse, so to speak. Before Jesus was taken into custody, God revealed to Peter, the divine nature of Jesus and Peter subseqently made to Christ, a profession of faith. At that point, Jesus renamed Peter, from Simon to Peter and made the promise to Peter that he would build his Church upon Peter. It was not until after the resurection that Christ opened the apostles minds so as to understand the the scriptures and at that point, commisiond the apotles. Christ did not put in place His Church until after the ressurection. Therfore, it is not relevant that before the resurection that Peter was afraid for his life when being questioned and accused by the dangerous enemies of Jesus Christ. Remember, Peter, as well as the other apostles, were not perfect men either before the ressurection nor after.

Matt 16: 13-20

Peace

Mathew 16:18 "And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." ESV

Peter (petros) Rock (petra). I am not a Greek scholar, but those words translated Peter, and rock are of different genders, and seem to have vastly different meanings; possibly comparable to a large mountain and hill. One should think twice before trying to equate the two.

I believe Peter himself gives us additional details in 1 Peter 2.

Also Christ gave Peter his name long before this point, see John 1:42.

Then why are you trying to put the horse before the cart, also? I have not even begun to show where Peter was still a shaken "rock"...do you have ANY other proof that Christ told Peter that he was rock that the church was founded upon? Please point me to that scripture...

And by your own words, you are saying that Peter and the other apostles were not perfect but the rock that the church was to built upon HAD TO BE....just like the sacrifice for us today HAD TO BE....or why didn't God just get ANY man to die on the cross? I await scripture...

__________________
Romans 16:16 1 Thess. 5:17 1 Thess. 5:22 1 Tim. 6:12 2 Tim 2:15

Aww, now you got ahead of me, Lee! But since you brought it up...maybe we should go to the point where this is brought out...in Greek, the original language of the New Testament, Christ calls Peter "Rock" (masculine gender) then says "on this rock" (feminine gender) I will build my church. What is the rock on which the church is built? To give insight...isn't the church always referred to in feminine gender (as the bride or wife of Christ)?

The usual catholic interpretation is Peter, but the difference in gender makes this questionable. Then, just five verses ahead, Jesus reproves Peter with such severity that He calls him Satan. In the context itself then, it is equally possible that the "rock" upon which the church is founded is found in the statement that Peter made, You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God. Is the church founded upon Satan??? If it is Peter, why would Christ call Peter Satan??? (Of course there is more to that, but I am showing the different usage in gender terms).

If we will let the passages in other parts of the Bible that refer to the same subject help us decide who it is that the church is founded upon, we find that it is Christ. No one can lay a foundation other than the one that has been laid, namely Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11).

Of course that is not all, I have to say (well, really the Bible) about this matter...

__________________
Romans 16:16 1 Thess. 5:17 1 Thess. 5:22 1 Tim. 6:12 2 Tim 2:15

Sorry Dwayne. I tried to stay out of it, and did for a while, but I just couldn't help myself.

Mr. White, I don't know why you would think that Peter would have to be perfect. Man is imperfect, yet God can still use him in any way He sees fit. Take yourself as an example. You are a pastor I gather. Are you perfect? Just becasue the sacrafice was, and still is perfect, has no relation to imperfect men overseeing the Church. Catholics trust that the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church so that her teachings on matters of salvation and morals are correct.

Peace

Mr. White, I think those verses actually came afterward In Matt 16: 21-24 when Jesus is reproving Peter, please remember that in Hebrew, the word satan means advasary or one that opposes, not the Devil.

Now let's look at this from the fact that we now know what satan means in Hebrew. And Peter taking him... That is, taking him aside, out of a tender love, respect and zeal for his Lord and Master's honour, began to expostulate with him, as it were to rebuke him, saying, Lord, far be it from thee to suffer death; but the Lord said to Peter, verse 23, Go behind me, Satan. These words may signify, Begone from me; but the holy Fathers expound them otherwise, that is, come after me, or follow me; and by these words the Lord would have Peter to follow him in his suffering, and not to oppose the divine will of the Father.

Peace

Ok, let's talk about Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church."

I understand your thinking when you talk about the Greek translations. To understand much of the bible we have to get behind the English to the Greek, just like you say.

Some people falsely say that the Greek word for rock is petra, which means a large, massive stone. Then they will go on to say that the word used for Simon’s new name, Petros, a little stone, a pebble." Those are not an accurate translations.

In reality Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant "small stone" and "large rock" in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant "rock." If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. A non-Catholic cannot use the small stone – large rock argument because that is faulty translation of Greek. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).

Any one using faulty translations might think that Jesus was contrasting Simon and the rock. On the one side, the rock on which the Church would be built, Jesus himself; on the other, this mere pebble. Hence Mr. White, you might think Jesus was really saying that he himself would be the foundation, and he was emphasizing that Simon wasn’t remotely qualified to be it. When an accurate translation of Greek is used, it is clear to Catholics that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock.

Well Mr. White, I agree that we must get behind the English to the Greek, and I hope you’ll agree with me that we must get behind the Greek to the Aramaic.

As you know, Aramaic was the language Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews in Palestine spoke. It was the common language of Palestine. Many, if not most of them, knew Greek, of course, because Greek was the language of commerce of the Mediterranean world, and most of the books of the New Testament were written in it, because they were written not just for Christians in Palestine but also for Christians in places such as Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, places where Aramaic wasn’t the spoken language.

But not all of the New Testament was written in Greek. Many hold that Matthew was written in Aramaic—we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea—but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek.

Jesus spoke Aramaic and we know this because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Take for example, Matthew 27:46, where Jesus says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’

What’s more Mr. White, in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we see the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).

If you are wondering what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’

When one understands what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this clearly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In the French language, one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock.

You might wonder that if kepha means the same as petra, why don’t we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’? You might also wonder why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra?

Answer: Because he had no choice. Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.

In Greek, as you mentioned in your post, you have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.

Greek translations give us an imperfect rendering of the Aramaic; you lose part of the play on words. In English, where we have ‘Peter’ and ‘rock,’ you lose all of it. But that’s the best you can do in Greek.

Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the scriptural verses does indicate a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter is contrary to the context Mr. White. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. Kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom, as can be seen in Isaiah 22:22. Mr. White, Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.

What I discussed above in only one reason why Catholics believe that Christ put peter in charge and made him the visible head of His Church right before he left for heaven. There are other reasons and those are biblical as well.

Peace

Satan:

Abaddon - Rev 9:11
accuser - Ps 109:6, Rev 12:10
adversary - 1 Pet 5:8
Apollyon - Rev. 9:11
Beelzebul - Matt.10:25, Mark 3:22
Belial - 2 Cor 6:15
deceiver of the world - Rev 12:9
devil Matt 4:1,5; 25:41; John 6:70; 13:2; Eph 4:27; 6:11; 1 Tim3:6,7; Heb 2:14; 1 Pet 5:8; Rev 2:10; 20:2,10
dragon - Rev 12:9
enemy - Matt 13:28,39
evil one - Matt 13:19,38; John 17:15; Eph 6:16; 1 John 2:13,14; 5:18,19
father of lies - John 8:44
god of this world - 2 Cor 4:4
liar - John 8:44
murderer - John 8:44
prince of the power of the air - Eph 2:2
ruler of the demons - Matt 9:34; Mark 3:22
ruler of this world - John 12:31; 14:30;16:11
serpent of old - Rev 12:9

I do not think Satan means just adversary or one who opposes!!!

__________________
For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Tim 2:5 (U-NASB)

So you do not acknowledge that the word satan in Hebrew can also mean "one who opposes"?


Peace