Upon this rock

[Albion]

Albion, we are simply going to have to agree to disagree agreeably.

Apparently, but I think the absence of any response to the facts I've presented says a lot.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

In Matt. 16:18 the Lord mentioned Peter when He spoke to him about the building of the church.
It must have been from this that Peter obtained the concept of living stones for the building of a spiritual house

1 Peter 2:5
You yourselves also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house into a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

which is the church. The stone here denotes a work of transformation that brings forth material for God's building

1 Corinthians 3:11
For another foundation no one is able to lay besides that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

As the Christ and the Son of the living God, the Lord Jesus is the unique foundation laid by God for the building of the church

Matthew 16:16 — Matthew 16:18
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said to him, Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in the heavens.

18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this brock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

No one can lay another foundation.

 

[prodromos]

Regarding Matthew 16:18-19

Albion, I have always found Protestant assertions that somehow the "rock" that Jesus builds the church on is Peter's faith,...to be rediculous

Then you consider the majority understanding of the Church Fathers to be ridiculous. Have fun with that.

 

[prodromos]

Because it is a play on words, Peter meaning rock. You are the rock and upon this rock...

Only Christ is referred to as the rock. Peter is simply called rock.

 

[Meowzltov]

Apparently, but I think the absence of any response to the facts I've presented says a lot.

You think you have presented facts? You have presented arguments, and I have not found them convincing.

 

[Sophrosyne]

My problem with this idea is that it throws the importance of Paul under the Bus for Peter. God went essentially out of his way to recruit Paul and specifically sent him to the Gentiles of which the "Church" is mostly composed of. The writings of Paul and his work was the basis of the "Church" at that time for the most part and Gentile Christianity wasn't Peter's calling to begin with he resisted going to gentiles to the point Jesus had to give him a vision about eating food. Personally I think Paul was the head of the Church not Peter and would be the first (if applicable) Pope as the gospel given to Gentile believers was given to him to present (Gospel of Grace). If Peter were to be the head of the Church is wouldn't make any sense to reveal the gospel of Grace to Paul in the first place because it is what (for the most part) Christianity is based upon.

 

[Meowzltov]

Only Christ is referred to as the rock. Peter is simply called rock.

This makes no sense. First of all, it doesn't say the rock, it says this rock. This refers back to whatever was just said before which was Peter.

 

[Albion]

You think you have presented facts? You have presented arguments, and I have not found them convincing.

Very well, you'd have to do some study in order to verify these well-known facts for yourself. Don't bother, if you don't want to know if they're right or not.

 

[prodromos]

This makes no sense. First of all, it doesn't say the rock, it says this rock. This refers back to whatever was just said before which was Peter.

Many Church Fathers disagree with you.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

This makes no sense. First of all, it doesn't say the rock, it says this rock. This refers back to whatever was just said before which was Peter.

The thing being referred back to was "“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" . Simon Bar Jonah became a 'living stone' because of the revealing from heaven, which is the key to citizenship in the kingdom and membership in the church.

 

[Rick Otto]

The thing being referred back to was "“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" . Simon Bar Jonah became a 'living stone' because of the revealing from heaven, which is the key to citizenship in the kingdom and membership in the church.

That would explain the impersonal pronoun.

 

[BayouAngel]

Try your best to put what you have been taught on the shelf and re-read the scriptures about the event.

Start with the question Jesus asked.

Matt 16:13
When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? KJV

They answered and then Jesus asked another question.

Matt 16:15
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? KJV

Peter answered;

Matt 16:16
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. KJV

Jesus responded.

His response is the "subject" of what else He said in the conversation.

His response was about the source of what Peter said.

His response was that Peter did not learn that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God from men.

Matt 16:17
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. KJV

Jesus said that Peter learned that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God from "my Father which is in heaven".

Then the verse that you believe I interpreted incorrectly.

Matt 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. KJV

The word used for Peter is petros, masculine in gender, meaning a detached large fragment of rock.

The "rock" Jesus then spoke about.

The "rock" He would build His church on.

Is another word.

That word is petra, feminine in gender, a massive rock.

Two different rocks.
Peter, a detached fragment of rock.

Petra, a massive rock, on which Jesus would build His church.

The Petra, large massive rock is the subject Jesus was talking about.

That subject being knowledge revealed to men by the Father in heaven.

Peter is not the massive rock the church was built on.

You are Rock [petros, masculine in gender, a detached but large fragment of rock], and upon this massive rock [petra, feminine in gender, feminine demonstrative pronoun cannot go back to masculine petros; petra, a rocky peak, a massive rock] I will build my Church.

A very well worded and thought out response. A shame the op dismisses the literal translations of the words and is unable to even contemplate why the sudden change in words (petros vs. petra) would lead others to consider other interpretations

 

[RhaegarTargaryen]

snip

Jesus also calls Peter satan. Does that mean that the Pope is actually satan?

 

[Meowzltov]

The thing being referred back to was "“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" . Simon Bar Jonah became a 'living stone' because of the revealing from heaven, which is the key to citizenship in the kingdom and membership in the church.

No. the THIS ROCK which was referred back to was THE ROCK in the previous phrase.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Jesus also calls Peter satan. Does that mean that the Pope is actually satan?

Jesus did not call Peter Satan. He told Satan to get behind Him. So, no to your question.

 

[Root of Jesse]

A very well worded and thought out response. A shame the op dismisses the literal translations of the words and is unable to even contemplate why the sudden change in words (petros vs. petra) would lead others to consider other interpretations

It's a real shame to do exactly what you criticize others for doing...literal translations...

It's not petros/petra. It's Kephas/Kepha.

 

[BayouAngel]

It's a real shame to do exactly what you criticize others for doing...literal translations...

It's not petros/petra. It's Kephas/Kepha.

As I'm not a language scholar, I had to look for the "original translations." It seems no one can agree what the original might have been, only that Greek is the earliest known, so it appears no real argument can be made for either side. The Greek translation clearly shows the sudden change in words. Based on that, there will always be different interpretations until Jesus corrects us.

 

[Root of Jesse]

As I'm not a language scholar, I had to look for the "original translations." It seems no one can agree what the original might have been, only that Greek is the earliest known, so it appears no real argument can be made for either side. The Greek translation clearly shows the sudden change in words. Based on that, there will always be different interpretations until Jesus corrects us.

But if you look in the Gospel of John, Jesus refers to Peter as Kephas, as does Paul. Since this is Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, we can rely on that. Many places outside of Scripture also refer to him as Kephas. But the petros/petra argument is null and void.

 

[BayouAngel]

But if you look in the Gospel of John, Jesus refers to Peter as Kephas, as does Paul. Since this is Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, we can rely on that. Many places outside of Scripture also refer to him as Kephas. But the petros/petra argument is null and void.

Still rather missing the original Aramaic for reference of the other rock. Without it, we can only guess that the same word was used. Semantics aside, even assuming the words are the same, and that for some reason Jesus wanted the rock and foundation of his church to be a flawed human being... well, never mind.

 

[Root of Jesse]

And yet, when Jesus was speaking to the Apostles, in Matthew 16, what was the venue?