What did Jesus mean when He told Peter he was the rock he would build his church upon?

prodromos said:

That is not the same as believing He was the Son of God.

Click to expand...

actions speak louder than words

Peter was told to follow on the grounds that Andrew had found the messiah

if he hadn't believed, he wouldn't have followed

Peter will never put himself above the other Apostles again, having been greatly humbled by his failing.

Click to expand...

does your Bible have Acts 2, where Peter represented the whole Church at Pentecost? Does your bible call Peter a "pillar apostle"? Peter clearly maintained his leadership authority

Strengthening his brothers is a service. It is not leading.

Click to expand...

it's BOTH
Mark 9:35=Luke 22:26

prodromos said:

His being called "rock" was contingent on his confession of Christ as the Son of God. Peter is the archetype of the Apostles, and by extension the bishops. All are "rock" who confess Christ.

Click to expand...

You're reading into the text. Believers in Christ are repeatedly referred to as Stones LITHOS.

yes

but, Please cite even one scriptural verse where anybody other than Jesus Christ or Simon Peter were ever referred to as a Rock. PETRA

Erik Nelson said:

but, Please cite even one scriptural verse where anybody other than Jesus Christ or Simon Peter were ever referred to as a Rock. PETRA

Click to expand...

You going sola scriptura now? I'm Eastern Orthodox. There is no spoon.

Erik Nelson said:

You're reading into the text.

Click to expand...

This is the consensus of the Church Fathers. Take it up with them.

Erik Nelson said:

it's BOTH
Mark 9:35=Luke 22:26

Click to expand...

Christ has already filled the position spoken of in Mark

Lybrah said:

Many claim that because Jesus said that to Peter, that Peter became the first pope and that proves the Roman Catholic Church is the only true Christian church. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Bob Crowley said:

Peter IS the focus of Christ's statement, and no amount of circular reasoning will explain that away....

And the crystal clear focus of Christ's statement was Peter. It's there in black and white, and very straight forward.

Click to expand...

Context matters and there are two types of context. What isn't clear is the historical context when that statement was written down in the Bible. The Bible was written for us, it was not written to us and what we are reading may not necessarily be what the author and his 2000 year old audience was reporting on.

There is a less popular historical reasoning today about that statement that circulates in Christian academic circles which isn't about Peter's primacy at all. My basic understanding about that historical viewpoint is as follows:

Due to their location, the focus of Jesus and the disciples was on "the gates of hell", it was a representation of everything that wasn't the kingdom of God. Jewish culture back then associated that specific region with their historical national enemies.

The disciples thought to expect Jesus to restore the kingdom of God in their life time Acts of the Apostles 1:6, so previous to that, when He said the gates of hell wasn't going to prevail against it, they were understanding it as a statement about something they too would participate in during their lifetime. They were going to restore the Kingdom of Israel and Peter was going to have one of the thrones Matthew 19:28 .

Basically that general reasoning puts quit a different perspective on what Jesus was communicating and the disciples were understanding and is completely different from the popular back and forth discussions about Peter's primacy.

Lybrah said:

Many claim that because Jesus said that to Peter, that Peter became the first pope and that proves the Roman Catholic Church is the only true Christian church. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

I don't personally believe that he told Peter that Peter was the rock he would found his Church upon. I believe that what he was saying was that the confession or revelation that Jesus was the Christ, the son of the living God was the rock upon which the church would be founded. "for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven." It is founded on the revelation, given by the Father.

1 Corinthians 12:3

3 Therefore I inform you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

Take a look at the Gospel of John, Chapter 1, the calling of Peter and Nathaniel to be disciples -

40 Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. 41 The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, “We have found the Messiah” (that is, the Christ). 42 And he brought him to Jesus.*
...
49 Then Nathanael declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.”

50 Jesus said, “You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You will see greater things than that.” 51 He then added, “Very truly I tell you, you will see ‘heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on’ the Son of Man.”

So Peter's personal declaration hardly seems to be unique, or the first person this was revealed to.

*By the way, if anyone wants to reconcile this introduction of Peter to Jesus (John 1:40-42) with Matthew's introduction of Peter to Jesus (Matthew 4:18-20), I am all ears. Feel free to contort yourselves as much as necessary

prodromos said:

Christ has already filled the position spoken of in Mark

Click to expand...

Christ set the EXAMPLE yes.

prodromos said:

You going sola scriptura now? I'm Eastern Orthodox. There is no spoon.

Click to expand...

Well everyone starts with scripture first... are you acknowledging that NO ONE besides Christ and Peter are described as a rock? Petra.

prodromos said:

This is the consensus of the Church Fathers. Take it up with them.

Click to expand...

Catholics say the same thing. In favor of Petrine primacy.

Petros2015 said:

the confession or revelation that Jesus was the Christ, the son of the living God was the rock upon which the church would be founded. "for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven." It is founded on the revelation, given by the Father.

1 Corinthians 12:3

3 Therefore I inform you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

Take a look at the Gospel of John, Chapter 1, the calling of Peter and Nathaniel to be disciples -

40 Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. 41 The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, “We have found the Messiah” (that is, the Christ). 42 And he brought him to Jesus.*
...
49 Then Nathanael declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.”

50 Jesus said, “You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You will see greater things than that.” 51 He then added, “Very truly I tell you, you will see ‘heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on’ the Son of Man.”

So Peter's personal declaration hardly seems to be unique, or the first person this was revealed to.

*By the way, if anyone wants to reconcile this introduction of Peter to Jesus (John 1:40-42) with Matthew's introduction of Peter to Jesus (Matthew 4:18-20), I am all ears. Feel free to contort yourselves as much as necessary

Click to expand...

So then, everyone who confesses. Jesus as Christ. Gets a copy of the keys to the Kingdom? Everyone gets to bind and loose = defining doctrine what is and what is not acceptable?

Everyone. Gets to consecrate bishops and gets to write a pair of epistles and put them in the Bible?

Petros2015 said:

*By the way, if anyone wants to reconcile this introduction of Peter to Jesus (John 1:40-42) with Matthew's introduction of Peter to Jesus (Matthew 4:18-20), I am all ears. Feel free to contort yourselves as much as necessary

Click to expand...

Matthew 4:18-20 = Luke 5:1-11

Norbert L said:

Due to their location, the focus of Jesus and the disciples was on "the gates of hell", it was a representation of everything that wasn't the kingdom of God. Jewish culture back then associated that specific region with their historical national enemies.

The disciples thought to expect Jesus to restore the kingdom of God in their life time Acts of the Apostles 1:6, so previous to that, when He said the gates of hell wasn't going to prevail against it, they were understanding it as a statement about something they too would participate in during their lifetime. They were going to restore the Kingdom of Israel and Peter was going to have one of the thrones Matthew 19:28 .

Basically that general reasoning puts quit a different perspective on what Jesus was communicating and the disciples were understanding and is completely different from the popular back and forth discussions about Peter's primacy.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's the argument of Michael Heiser. They were standing near Mount Hermon. In enemy territory.

But please listen to yourself. The first part of the verse starts with INTERNAL IN GROUP references "you are Peter on this rock. I will build my church", all of that is referring to the IN GROUP. It's focusing on the proto church.

Yes, then the focus does shift to the OUTSIDE THE EXTERNAL OUT GROUP. The "gates of hell", referring to Mount Herman.

But that physical location context, setting has no affect on the ingroup references at the beginning.

Erik Nelson said:

Catholics say the same thing. In favor of Petrine primacy.

Click to expand...

Not all.

Petros2015 said:

Click to expand...

Well, if everyone who confesses is fully 100% equivalent to Peter himself then everyone has keys to the Kingdom and what one person decides is in an involved another could just as easily decide is excluded and out

sounds like chaos.

prodromos said:

Not all.

Click to expand...

almost all?

Erik Nelson said:

Matthew 4:18-20 = Luke 5:1-11

Click to expand...

Matthew 4:18-20 = Luke 5:1-11 != John 1:40-42

A lot of time has passed at this point between the events and the writings of the Gospels. Did they all remember all the details of how it all went down? I'm not sure. I couldn't tell you much of anything about what was going on in my life March 1999.

Although.

If I saw a man walk on water, get crucified and come back to life, I could tell you I remembered that. it would be hard to get me to shut up about it.

Erik Nelson said:

Well, if everyone who confesses is fully 100% equivalent to Peter himself

Click to expand...

I don't believe that; the Church structure is already founded and established; the scriptures were established by that Church. I just feel that it was founded and established by Christ, built upon faith in Christ, not by Peter built upon faith in Peter. Peter's level of commitment to Christ was nearly if not completely total up to and including martyrdom. But one must begin somewhere, and that beginning is the revelation followed by the confession of faith.

Lybrah said:

Many claim that because Jesus said that to Peter, that Peter became the first pope and that proves the Roman Catholic Church is the only true Christian church. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Contextually, their interpretation isn't coherent with the text.

Simon made the good confession of who Jesus is, and upon that confession Jesus said that he would build his church on this rock, this foundational truth. Simon, who made the good confession, was called Peter on account of it. It has nothing to do with popery.