Hassan
Thank you for the information. The reason I am asking questions and may disagree with you and others, because I had many friends that were Catholic and Protestant. We have discussed religion, the church on many occasions. As a person of Greek heritage. I have told them on several occasions their understanding "if any" of the language is incorrect. I understand that most people, has read classical Greek, which is totally different that the Greek Language in the Bible. The Greek Language of the Bible, is Koinec Greek, which means it's the language of the street, market places, fishing villages etc. The Greek Language, is based upon grammatical rendering, prepositions, Moods "indicative, imperative operative or subjective" Tense "present, aorist, perfect, imperfect and future" , Conditions " first, second, third and fourth.
Based on the Koinec Language, I disagree with you understanding of Mt. 16:18. I think, this is the scripture you are referring to, concerning your answers about the "rock" this is what this particular scripture teaches:
1. This was Peter's confession of faith.
2. Jesus, resposne to Peter "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. etc. ........ bsed on his answer.
My understanding is the Catholic Church teaches from that particular scripture the Lord made Peter alone the Rock and key bearer of the church. But, that's not what that scripture is teaching.
When one continue to autopsy the scriptures, concerning the NT Church.
1. Peter, is never given a place of special authority in the NT. Jesus, always treats the apostles as equal in authority and responsibility [Mt. 28:16-20]
2. At the only church council mentioned in the NT, James-not Peter-preside over the meeting [Acts 15]. Now, one would come to the conclusion, if Jesus, had appointed Peter, he would reside over the meeting not James.
3. Refering back to Mt. 28:16-20 and other scriptures. When the foundation of the church is mentioned, Christ-not-Peter-is called the rock on which it is built. Peter, himself explains in 1 Petr 2:4-8 that Christ, is the cornerstone of the church. Paul, also refers to "Christ, being the chief cornerstone - [Eph. 2:20] "For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ" {1 Cor. 3:11]
4. Therefore, Peter, being the rock is not true. Mt. 28:16-20, is a confession of faith.
Let's look at this argument. If the Catholic Church is correct. Suppose Jesus, did refer to Peter as "the rock". The bible, does not teach apostolic succession. It does not teach that those who followed Petr were also to be the rock on which the church is built. Neither, does the Scriptures say anything about the authority of Rome of the popes. Truely, the word "pope" is not even used in the NT.
In fact, he only positions for the NT church are those pointed out in Ephesians 4:11, with the exception of Apostles and Prophets.
I can not find anywhere in the bible, where anyone uses the title of "Pope"
While to some I may seem augumentative, I am just attempting to obtain a more indept understanding of different religious beliefs.
_______________________________________________________
I understand the division of the "Catholic Church" during the early church history. It was divided due to the diference of opinion between; Leo, of Rome - who said everyone should obey the bishop of Rome "himself" because he held the "Primacy of St. Peter." Through the Pose, as Peter's successor. Leo's, claim was disputed by the eastern "sect" of the church, which was centered around Constantinople. In 1504, when the Eastern & Western "Sects" broke up because the Eastern church refuse to accept the authority of Pope Leo IX. As a result of this, the Western Church grew and added certain doctrines theat were not in the Bible. Within the Western Church, there was disagreement, primarily because the new teaching was not supported by Scriptures. At this point Martin Luther, enter the picture.
Again thanks for the information.