You Can't Get Past this Rock

[Catholic Christian]

If you wish to read the First Post in this thread,
you must click this link:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0611btb.asp

 

[Catholic Christian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqQP4bErs2Ehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxvKK735gFY

 

[Nathan45]

You could probably argue that the rock is symbolic of faith.

I like the passage that comes before, verse 17:


...


Who do people say that the Son of Man is?’

14And they said, ‘Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.’

15He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’

16Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’

17And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven.

18And I tell you, you are Peter/Rock, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

 

[NoDoubt]

During Jesus earthly ministry, He personally chose twelve apostles with no hint of future succession. The Apostle Paul was chosen later by the Lord Jesus after the resurrection as He personally appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus. Thus, the very beginning of the new testament Church was being established upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone (Ephesians 2:20).

This position of being an “Apostle” was unique to them. Even after the Apostles’ deaths, their unique title remains with them for all eternity. In the Bible, we are given a glimpse of the heavenly city, And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb[Jesus] (Revelation 21:14)

According to Scripture, the future of the Church rested in the appointing of family men able to rule and to carry on the teaching of the Apostles and of Jesus Christ but all according to the written word of truth found in the Bible. The Bible clearly shows that the Apostles established the practice of appointing not successors but rather deacons and elders (elders are also referred to as bishops).

The term bishop or elder is never employed in the New Testament to designate an order of men superior to others. They are ordinary family men having also the function of leading the Lord’s people. Never are they seen as “successors” to the Apostles. This concept is wholly unknown to the New Testament. It is very clear from the Scriptures that the Apostle Paul was telling both Titus and Timothy who were not Apostles to be the ones to appoint bishops. This established the practice in which the local church was to appoint elders or bishops from the available men whose obedient lives were observed and evident to all.

The Scripture carefully recorded the visits of Peter to Samaria, Lydda, Joppa, Caesarea and Antioch. There is simply no mention made of his going to Rome, which is essential to establish the Roman Catholic position. This first building block of an imaginary succession is missing in the New Testament. Apostolic succession without apostolic doctrine is a fraud. The Apostle Paul at Rome never once mentions Peter in any of his letters written from Rome to the churches, although he does remember very many others who were with him in the city. Clearly the teaching regarding Peter being in Rome as its first Bishop is a simply a deception. Nowhere else in the New Testament or other credible written history shows evidence of Peter ever even visiting Rome.

The Roman Catholic Church has no intention of obeying the clear witness of the Scripture, as is obvious from their blatant disobedience to the fact that elders or bishops are to be the “husband of one wife”. Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats (meatless Friday yep), which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth (I Timothy 4:1-3).

Peter never set foot in Rome. He was appointed as the apostle to the Jews. Paul was the apostle to the gentiles.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Translation from Tex-Rec and not sure if that greek word # 3778 is "this or that"

Matthew 16:16 Answering yet Simon Peter/petroV <4074> said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the God, the living".
17 Answering yet the Jesus said to him, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonah: that flesh and blood not it un-covers to thee, but the Father of Me, the in the heavens.
Matt 16:18 `And I yet to thee am saying, that thou art Peter/a-Rock/petroV <4074>, and upon this/that, the rock/petra <4073> I shall be building of Me the assembly, and gates of Hades not shall be prevailing of her;

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

Tex-Rec NT) Matthew 16:18 kagw <2504> [AND I] de <1161> {YET} soi <4671> {TO THEE} legw <3004> (5719) { AM SAYING,} oti <3754> {THAT} su <4771> {THOU} ei <1488> (5748) {ART} petroV <4074> {PETER,} kai <2532> {AND} epi <1909> {UPON} tauth <3778> [THIS] th <3588> {THE} petra <4073> {ROCK} oikodomhsw <3618> (5692) {I WILL BUILD} mou <3450> {OF ME} thn <3588> {THE} ekklhsian <1577> {ASSEMBLY,} kai <2532> {AND} pulai <4439> {GATES} adou <86> {OF HADES} ou <3756> {NOT} katiscusousin <2729> (5692) {SHALL BE PREVAILING} authV <846> {OF HER.}

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Peter never set foot in Rome. He was appointed as the apostle to the Jews. Paul was the apostle to the gentiles.

But of course he was.

1 Peter 2:8 and a stone/liqoV <3037> of stumbling/skandalou <4625> and a rock/petra <4073> of snare/proskoptousin <4350> --who are being disobedient to the word --into which also they were set/placed;

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Boy, this was a short thread.............

 

[Montalban]

The term bishop or elder is never employed in the New Testament to designate an order of men superior to others. They are ordinary family men having also the function of leading the Lord&#8217;s people. Never are they seen as &#8220;successors&#8221; to the Apostles. This concept is wholly unknown to the New Testament. It is very clear from the Scriptures that the Apostle Paul was telling both Titus and Timothy who were not Apostles to be the ones to appoint bishops. This established the practice in which the local church was to appoint elders or bishops from the available men whose obedient lives were observed and evident to all.

That's false. Peter and others annointed 'bishops' And in Hebrews Paul calls the faithful to follow their leaders.

Deacons
1 Timothy 3:10
And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
1 Timothy 3:13
For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

All the offices are mentioned...

Priests
1 Timothy 4:14
Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
Presbytery
4244 presbuterion pres-boo-ter'-ee-on neuter of a presumed derivative of 4245; the order of elders, i.e. (specially), Israelite Sanhedrin or Christian "presbytery":--(estate of) elder(-s), presbytery.
Strongs Lexicon
http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=presbytery

Bishops
1 Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
Titus 1:7
For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
1 Peter 2:25
For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.


And here's Paul...
Hebrews 13:17
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Peter never set foot in Rome. He was appointed as the apostle to the Jews. Paul was the apostle to the gentiles.

Even if Peter was never mentioned in the Bible as having gone to Rome, it would be absurd to say that this alone is reason to say he never went there.

History didn't stop at the Bible.

 

[Montalban]

the following is a non-copyright article for a discussion:
=======================================
You Can't Get Past this Rock

Great, more of you quoting someone else's work!

Although, you're improving you should at least acknowledge the author
Tim Staples

 

[Montalban]

The problem with the OP is that even if Jesus literally said "On this person, Peter I confer leadership of my church" there's nothing to say that leadership should necessarily be conferred only on the bishop of Rome!

Peter founded several Sees, including my Church; Antioch.

 

[Montalban]

The Apostles sent Peter on a mission...
Acts 8.14: Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John:

God&#8217;s Prime Minister


7. When we understand that Christ is the true son of David who came to restore the prophetic kingdom of David, we understand that in Matthew 16, Christ, like the king of Israel, was establishing a "prime minister" among his ministers, the apostles, in the kingdom. Isaiah 22:20&#8211;22 gives insight into the ministry of the "prime minister" in ancient Israel:

In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.​

In Revelation 1:18, Jesus declares, "I have the keys of Death and Hades," then quotes this very text from Isaiah in Revelation 3:7:

And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: "The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens."​

No Christian would deny that Jesus is the King who possesses the keys. To whom does he give the keys? To Peter!

The keys given to Peter were given to all the Apostles.

But first, please cite for me any Church Father who linked the single key given to David with the keys given to Peter.

You're into lotsa quotes...
The Keys &#8211; Evidence from the Bible
The Bible alone mentions &#8216;the keys&#8217; with the person of Peter
Matthew 16:19
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

However it is implied that &#8216;the keys&#8217; were given to other Apostles
Matthew 18:18 "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

This later verse shows all the Apostles being made equal. Jesus says this to all the Apostles. Note he is talking of binding and loosing. Although He doesn&#8217;t mention &#8216;the keys&#8217; here He's using the same terms as He did when He gave the keys to Peter ; binding and loosing. How do you go about binding and loosing without the keys?

Other verses make the same implication; of power to all in heaven and on earth.

John 20:23 "If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Matthew 18:19 "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven.

Evidence from the early church

Tertullian
"What, now, (has this to do) with the Church, and) your (church), indeed, Psychic? For, in accordance with the person of Peter, it is to spiritual men that this power will correspondently appertain, either to an apostle or else to a prophet. "
On Modesty. Book VII. Chapter XXI

It is clear others will also posess the keys, those who are 'spiritual men' in accordance, as the person of Peter. It is not Peter's exclusively.

Hilary of Poitiers
&#8220;This faith it is which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven. This faith is the Father's gift by revelation; even the knowledge that we must not imagine a false Christ, a creature made out of nothing, but must confess Him the Son of God, truly possessed of the Divine nature
On the Trinity. Book VI.37

Augustine
&#8220;He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be, loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance.&#8221;
On Christian Doctrine Book I.
Chapter 18.17 The Keys Given to the Church.

"...Peter, the first of the apostles, receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven for the binding and loosing of sins; and for the same congregation of saints, in reference to the perfect repose in the bosom of that mysterious life to come did the evangelist John recline on the breast of Christ. For it is not the former alone but the whole Church, that bindeth and looseth sins; nor did the latter alone drink at the fountain of the Lord's breast, to emit again in preaching, of the Word in the beginning, God with God, and those other sublime truths regarding the divinity of Christ, and the Trinity and Unity of the whole Godhead."
On the Gospel of John
Tractate CXXIV.7

"...the keys that were given to the Church,"
A Treatise Concerning the Correction of the Donatists
Chapter 10.45

"How the Church? Why, to her it was said, "To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven."
Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John
Homily X.10

 

[Montalban]

There's not one shepherd, either...
Acts 20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
(note more than one overseer of the flock!)
Even Peter exhorts others to feed the flock
1 Peter 5:2
Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind
Even Pope Leo the Great stated that there are many shepherds.
Many shepherds...
&#8220;&#8230;though He has delegated the care of His sheep to many shepherds, yet He has not Himself abandoned the guardianship of His beloved flock.&#8221;
Leo the Great &#8220;Sermon III&#8221;. (On His Birthday, III: Delivered on the Anniversary of His Elevation to the Pontificate, Chapter II)

 

[Rick Otto]

Thank you Montalban for your astute illustrations re: the others having the same powers the keys imply & the fact that leadership need not be monolithic, may I add, not even within the Godhead is it such.

However, the parsing has been cursory:

When Christ speaks to Peter, He does so in the second person; that is, direct address. Yet, the term "this rock" is third person (indirect address indicated by the use of taute), making the differentiation between "Peter" and "this rock" complete. . . . He is speaking to Peter, about the "rock." Hence, the text differentiates between Peter and the rock in two ways: the form of the word [petros and petra] and the person of address. (Answers to Catholic Claims, Crowne Publications, p. 105)

THAT is correct.

But because "this rock" is a metaphor for Peter, it is natural to use the third person.

Unless you can substantiate that, it is vain imagination.

Jesus does something similar in Matthew 21:42&#8211;44:
Have you never read in the Scriptures: "The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner?" . . . He who falls on this stone (ton lithon touton) will be broken to pieces; but when it falls on any one, it will crush him.

Not similar.

"This stone" refers to Jesus, just as "this rock" refers to Peter, but the third person is used in both cases because both the "rock" and the "stone" are metaphors.

Metaphorical form does not change grammatical rule, and in your example the narrator is consistantly speaking to the same person regardless of what he is talking about or what form of expression he is using.
In the narrative involving Peter, the author is not speaking to the reader as in your example, he is quoting Jesus speaking to Peter. In order for "this rock" to be grammaticaly correct & mean Peter, Jesus has to switch from talking to Peter to talk to a third party for a third person, impersonal pronoun to apply, otherwise the impersonality of the pronoun "this", automaticaly refers to the last impersonal object (the revelation) Peter spoke. Even that would be a stretch, because the personal pronoun "he" would replace "this rock" in the case of a third person(s), & the personal pronoun "you" instead of "this rock" would've been natural, if He was still addressing just Peter, as we both naturaly assume He was.

Metaphorical, or figurative form does not "naturaly" change the rules of grammar.

 

[Montalban]

Thank you Montalban for your astute illustrations re: the others having the same powers the keys imply & the fact that leadership need not be monolithic, may I add, not even within the Godhead is it such.
.

Simply put Peter's not the only key-holder, nor the only rock, nor the only shepherd. He's not the only head of the choir, and Rome isn't the only See of Peter.

But the author of the OP is more about cut 'n' paste, than argument

 

[thereselittleflower]

You could probably argue that the rock is symbolic of faith.

I like the passage that comes before, verse 17:


...


Who do people say that the Son of Man is?’

14And they said, ‘Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.’

15He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’

16Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’

17And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven.

18And I tell you, you are Peter/Rock, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

Yes, Peter told Jesus who Jesus was by divine revelation, then Jesus told Peter who Peter was:

1. "Rock" - with the massive rock cliff of Ceasserea looming in the background
2. The Rock upon which Jesus would build His Church
3. The Rock which the gates of hades would not prevail against
4. The Holder and Keeper of the Keys of the Kingdom - Occupier of the divinely appointed office of Prime Minister in Jesus' Kingdom with all its authority - the full authority of the King​

 

[thereselittleflower]

Simply put Peter's not the only key-holder, nor the only rock, nor the only shepherd. He's not the only head of the choir, and Rome isn't the only See of Peter.

But the author of the OP is more about cut 'n' paste, than argument

Peter was the only one named "Rock" and the only one of whom it was said the gates of hades would not prevail against.

Peter was the only one Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to.

Peter was the only one told to feed and care for His sheep and lambs, which included the other apostles.

And yes, Rome IS the ONLY See of Peter.

That was recognized in the Early Church quite well.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Simply put Peter's not the only key-holder, nor the only rock, nor the only shepherd. He's not the only head of the choir, and Rome isn't the only See of Peter.

But the author of the OP is more about cut 'n' paste, than argument

Glad to have the Orthodox here. I won't cut-paste but here is a link given to me by an Orthodox on the TAW board:

http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html

Matthew 16:16 Answering yet Simon Peter/petroV <4074> said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the God, the living".
17 Answering yet the Jesus said to him, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonah: that flesh and blood not it un-covers to thee, but the Father of Me, the in the heavens.
Matt 16:18 `And I yet to thee am saying, that thou art Peter/petroV <4074>, and upon this, the rock/petra <4073> I shall be building of Me the assembly, and gates of Hades not shall be prevailing of her;

Tex-Rec NT) Matthew 16:18 kagw <2504> [AND I] de <1161> {YET} soi <4671> {TO THEE} legw <3004> (5719) { AM SAYING,} oti <3754> {THAT} su <4771> {THOU} ei <1488> (5748) {ART} petroV <4074> {PETER,} kai <2532> {AND} epi <1909> {UPON} tauth <3778> [THIS] th <3588> {THE} petra <4073> {ROCK} oikodomhsw <3618> (5692) {I WILL BUILD} mou <3450> {OF ME} thn <3588> {THE} ekklhsian <1577> {ASSEMBLY,} kai <2532> {AND} pulai <4439> {GATES} adou <86> {OF HADES} ou <3756> {NOT} katiscusousin <2729> (5692) {SHALL BE PREVAILING} authV <846> {OF IT.}

The Church Fathers' Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18​

An Historical Refutation of the Claims of Roman Catholicism

 

[Catholic Christian]

You could probably argue that the rock is symbolic of faith.

I think its fair to say that scripture speaks on more than just one level, so I would agree, since the one does not negate the other.

 

[Catholic Christian]

Simply put Peter's not the only key-holder, nor the only rock, nor the only shepherd. He's not the only head of the choir, and Rome isn't the only See of Peter.

But the author of the OP is more about cut 'n' paste, than argument

Ah. Can you show me a scripture where someone else id given the keys?

The keys are symbolic of the OT Davidic Prime Minister. There was one King, and one Prime Minister among the King's ministers. There was not multiple Prime Ministers then, and there are not now. Peter and the popes are the fulfillment of that office.

 

[thereselittleflower]

There's not one shepherd, either...
Acts 20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
(note more than one overseer of the flock!)
Even Peter exhorts others to feed the flock
1 Peter 5:2
Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind
Even Pope Leo the Great stated that there are many shepherds.
Many shepherds...
&#8220;&#8230;though He has delegated the care of His sheep to many shepherds, yet He has not Himself abandoned the guardianship of His beloved flock.&#8221;
Leo the Great &#8220;Sermon III&#8221;. (On His Birthday, III: Delivered on the Anniversary of His Elevation to the Pontificate, Chapter II)

You have confused the concept of CHIEF Shepherd with the existance of many shepherds as though you can't have a CHIEF Shepherd if you have other shepherds under his authority.

But, this is what you have failed to recognize. That Christ appointed a CHEIF Shepherd, which automatically means there were other shepherds as well, they just didn't occupy the CHIEF place Peter did.

Only to Peter did Jesus say to feed and care for His sheep and lambs, which included the other Apostles - ie the role of the CHIEF SHEPHERD - Peter.

And of course, being a good Chief shepherd, he would encourage and instruct others to care for those placed under their care as shepherds of those portions of God's flock that was given them to care for.

But only to Peter was given the care of the entire flock of God.