is it peter the rock? or is it jesus?

tz620q

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,658
1,038
Carmel, IN
✟567,457.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. I led the horse. If the horse refuses to drink, I will not force it.
But you can't get a horse to Heaven and neither will we see asses there. Your failure to even acknowledge this shows that you are entrenched in your view and my attempt to create a halfway point between Peter and his confession of faith seems to have fallen on hard ground. You are right. This discussion will probably go nowhere. God be with you, Brother.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tz620q

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,658
1,038
Carmel, IN
✟567,457.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Too literally?!?! It IS literal! It was the first time He met Peter...there is NO contradiction...
OK, lets play the very literal game. So John states the same thing in John 1:42 that Matthew has in Matthew 16:16. Since John's account relates to Simon's first meeting Christ, which predates Matthew's account, then Simon gets called Peter (rock) before he ever made a confession of faith. That tends to prove the Catholic view that Peter is the rock, not his confession of faith.
 
Upvote 0

Yeshua HaDerekh

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it
May 9, 2013
11,444
3,769
Eretz
✟317,123.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
OK, lets play the very literal game. So John states the same thing in John 1:42 that Matthew has in Matthew 16:16. Since John's account relates to Simon's first meeting Christ, which predates Matthew's account, then Simon gets called Peter (rock) before he ever made a confession of faith. That tends to prove the Catholic view that Peter is the rock, not his confession of faith.

it is a nickname...it proves neither. What it proves is that he had the nickname prior to Matthew and it was only a play on words.
 
Upvote 0

tz620q

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,658
1,038
Carmel, IN
✟567,457.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
it is a nickname...it proves neither. What it proves is that he had the nickname prior to Matthew and it was only a play on words.
I guess I take John as being written from a more theological viewpoint and emphasizing Christ's divinity. So his naming Peter at that moment, when they have just met, the rock could be showing Christ's ability to know the future and anticipate Peter's confession. It seems strange though, since Andrew introduces Christ to Peter as the Messiah and so that seems to spoil Peter being the first to acknowledge that fact as in Matthew. If Andrew knew this from being told by John the Baptist, why didn't he say so in Matthew 16 when asked. So, to me, taking John as a strict chronology of events causes too many contradictions.
 
Upvote 0

Yeshua HaDerekh

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it
May 9, 2013
11,444
3,769
Eretz
✟317,123.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
I guess I take John as being written from a more theological viewpoint and emphasizing Christ's divinity. So his naming Peter at that moment, when they have just met, the rock could be showing Christ's ability to know the future and anticipate Peter's confession. It seems strange though, since Andrew introduces Christ to Peter as the Messiah and so that seems to spoil Peter being the first to acknowledge that fact as in Matthew. If Andrew knew this from being told by John the Baptist, why didn't he say so in Matthew 16 when asked. So, to me, taking John as a strict chronology of events causes too many contradictions.

I don't see what the problem is. Not everything is explained in scripture. But in this case we know Peter had the nickname well before the verse in Matthew...
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No.
Jesus named Simon, "Rock" after the truth that was revealed to him by His Father. That statement of truth regarding Jesus being the Christ, the Son of the living God, was the rock which Jesus said He would build His Church on.

"Simon, you are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church" (but not the Rock that is you, Simon)

Is that the gist?

Also, no one said anything about Peter not getting the "keys to the kingdom", only that he was not getting them exclusively.

Why do so many ignore the Old Testament example here?

Jesus didn't invent the notion of "giving the Keys of the kingdom" right there on the spot... it is rooted in the Old testament practice of what the King of Israel Bestowed upon His prime Minister.

Just as Jehovah Set up a governmental structure for OT Israel, Jesus is setting up His Governmental Structure for NT Israel, the Church.

Again, Read Isaiah 22:15-24 to gain the scriptural understanding of what it means for the King of Israel to bestow the keys of the kingdom to His prime minister, and you will have no more confusion on this.
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Only the very gullible would believe anyone but Christ is the rock of the universal church.

Without question, Christ is the Chief Cornerstone.
(Isaiah 28:16, Psalm 118:22, Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:1, Luke 20:17, Acts 4:11, 1 Peter 2:6-7)

The Church of scripture is one united ecclesial body (Eph 4:3-4; Eph 4:13-16; Jn 17:21; Mt 16:18) without schismatic divisions (1 Cor 12:25; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10; Jude 1:19; Gal 5:20; 3 John 1:9-10), with one teaching for all the churches (Acts 15:22-23,25,28/Acts 16:4-5; 1 Tim 1:3; 1 Cor 1:10; Eph 4:5; Jude 1:3), and one bishopric authorized of and by the apostles (Titus 1:5) by the laying on of hands in ordination (Heb 6:2; 2 Tim 1:6; 1 Tim 4:14; Titus 1:5), sharing ministers back and forth among all churches (1 Cor 16:3; Rom 16:1,3,9,21,23; Phil 2:19,25; Titus 3:12), receiving one another in fellowship and in greeting (Rom 15:5-7; Rom 16:16; Col 4:10,12,14; 3 John 1:9-10), where excommunication removes individuals from this one body (Matt 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:1-2,4-5), and which existed from St. Peter and the apostles unto today (Matt 16:18-19; Eph 3:21).

Protestantism, in Contrast, is an endless schism of divisions with multiple different teachings and authority structures, with no effective means of excommunication and no traceable Apostolic Lineage.

Given these two polar opposite church structures, I'm going to side with the Church of Scripture, every time.

Pope Clement of Rome (late 80s AD) wrote a letter to the Corinthians, and the letter was in response to THEIR appeal to him to solve a serious doctrinal division they were having. So, even in the first century there were apostolic Churches that were making appeals to the Bishop of Rome to settle grave disputes.

The fact remains that There was only one denomination until the protesting catholics broke away in the 1500s (Luther etc). Moreover, only one group of christians can trace its existence from the first century down to today: the catholics. No protestant denomination traces its history back to before about AD 1500. So, we know for a fact that no modern protestant sect has apostolic origins. Yet the catholic sect does, for it originated in the first century and continued in unbroken existence down to our times.

It has continued for 20 centuries now, and its doctrines have never changed. No other organization or government has lasted even beyond a few centuries.

Francis is, also without question, the 266th successor of the Prime Minister of the King, Bishop of the Church of Rome, an apostolic Church which appears in our bibles.

With respect, no one doubted the authority of Peter and his successors until after the 1500s. The early Christians believed it and taught it.

The postions of authority in Israel were held within "offices" (Lk 1:8 or Heb 7:5, for example). This continued right on in the offices of the New Israel of the Church. That is, Christ and the apostles came to build a Church that would exist forever (Eph 3:21; Matt 16:18-19), and that Church had leadership contained in "offices" (1 Tim 3:1,10; Acts 1:20; Rom 11:13, 12:4).

Offices have authority by virtue of their God-ordained existence, not by virtue of the person holding office. Psalm 109:8 affirms the nature of the offices of the Church--i.e., they are "offices," and they exist apart from the individual, and they continue perpetually for as long as the Melchizedek priesthood shall last (i.e., forever).

Apostolic Succession is historical and biblical. It can be traced by history, going all the way back generation by generation to Jesus. This is precisely why the Catholic priesthood is the one Jesus instituted 20 centuries ago. This is NOT at all to say those outside of this order are not Christians, but only to say that God has created a governmental order to the Church, and this has not been followed by protestants who broke away from the government of the Church and denied it existed any longer since "the papacy became the endtimes antichrist" (as Luther falsely taught). Obviously, the chaos of the protestant world is the result of this breaking away from the ordained Church government instituted by Christ.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Yeshua HaDerekh

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it
May 9, 2013
11,444
3,769
Eretz
✟317,123.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
"Simon, you are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church" (but not the Rock that is you, Simon)

Is that the gist?

Why do you ignore Peter was nicknamed in John 1:42, LONG before the current discussion in Matthew...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

misput

JimD
Sep 5, 2018
1,023
382
84
Pacific, Mo.
✟152,101.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Without question, Christ is the Chief Cornerstone.
(Isaiah 28:16, Psalm 118:22, Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:1, Luke 20:17, Acts 4:11, 1 Peter 2:6-7)

The Church of scripture is one united ecclesial body (Eph 4:3-4; Eph 4:13-16; Jn 17:21; Mt 16:18) without schismatic divisions (1 Cor 12:25; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10; Jude 1:19; Gal 5:20; 3 John 1:9-10), with one teaching for all the churches (Acts 15:22-23,25,28/Acts 16:4-5; 1 Tim 1:3; 1 Cor 1:10; Eph 4:5; Jude 1:3), and one bishopric authorized of and by the apostles (Titus 1:5) by the laying on of hands in ordination (Heb 6:2; 2 Tim 1:6; 1 Tim 4:14; Titus 1:5), sharing ministers back and forth among all churches (1 Cor 16:3; Rom 16:1,3,9,21,23; Phil 2:19,25; Titus 3:12), receiving one another in fellowship and in greeting (Rom 15:5-7; Rom 16:16; Col 4:10,12,14; 3 John 1:9-10), where excommunication removes individuals from this one body (Matt 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:1-2,4-5), and which existed from St. Peter and the apostles unto today (Matt 16:18-19; Eph 3:21).

Protestantism, in Contrast, is an endless schism of divisions with multiple different teachings and authority structures, with no effective means of excommunication and no traceable Apostolic Lineage.

Given these two polar opposite church structures, I'm going to side with the Church of Scripture, every time.

Francis is, also without question, the 266th successor of the Prime Minister of the King, Bishop of the Church of Rome, an apostolic Church which appears in our bibles.

With respect, no one doubted the authority of Peter and his successors until after the 1500s. The early Christians believed it and taught it.

The postions of authority in Israel were held within "offices" (Lk 1:8 or Heb 7:5, for example). This continued right on in the offices of the New Israel of the Church. That is, Christ and the apostles came to build a Church that would exist forever (Eph 3:21; Matt 16:18-19), and that Church had leadership contained in "offices" (1 Tim 3:1,10; Acts 1:20; Rom 11:13, 12:4).

Offices have authority by virtue of their God-ordained existence, not by virtue of the person holding office. Psalm 109:8 affirms the nature of the offices of the Church--i.e., they are "offices," and they exist apart from the individual, and they continue perpetually for as long as the Melchizedek priesthood shall last (i.e., forever).

Apostolic Succession is historical and biblical. It can be traced by history, going all the way back generation by generation to Jesus. This is precisely why the Catholic priesthood is the one Jesus instituted 20 centuries ago. This is NOT at all to say those outside of this order are not Christians, but only to say that God has created a governmental order to the Church, and this has not been followed by protestants who broke away from the government of the Church and denied it existed any longer since "the papacy became the endtimes antichrist" (as Luther falsely taught). Obviously, the chaos of the protestant world is the result of this breaking away from the ordained Church government instituted by Christ.
Actually the Roman Catholic church had its beginning when Christianity was sanctioned the official government religion and is the reason our constitution has the clause "separation of church and state". Not to say there are not a lot of Christian people in it, just as there are a lot of Christian people in and out of the protestant religions but the organizations themselves suffer a lot of corruption the same as all governments established by man. That is why the only pure government has Christ for its foundation and is pure only by His blood.
 
Upvote 0

tz620q

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,658
1,038
Carmel, IN
✟567,457.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Actually the Roman Catholic church had its beginning when Christianity was sanctioned the official government religion and is the reason our constitution has the clause "separation of church and state". Not to say there are not a lot of Christian people in it, just as there are a lot of Christian people in and out of the protestant religions but the organizations themselves suffer a lot of corruption the same as all governments established by man. That is why the only pure government has Christ for its foundation and is pure only by His blood.
Actually church and state separation is probably more of a result of England having a King that was also head of the Church of England and so set laws that required tithing to the Church of England. So a Puritan could tithe to his church; but only after the 10% went to the Church of England. This is one of the reasons the Puritans came to the U.S., though they set up a colony where they tolerated only the Puritan Church.

In fact, Catholics in the colonies suffered from government interference and later in the United States suffered from popular distrust and sometimes terrorist acts against them. So this old canard that the Catholic Church was the cause of the U.S. separation of church and state needs to be analyzed under the light of truth.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: parousia70
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tz620q

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,658
1,038
Carmel, IN
✟567,457.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Why do you ignore Peter was nicknamed in John 1:24, LONG before the current discussion in Matthew...
Actually, I am a hyperliteralist :sorry: and Matthew is before John in the Bible. So the events in Matthew come before the events in John.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: parousia70
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,436
11,981
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,733.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
"Simon, you are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church" (but not the Rock that is you, Simon)

Is that the gist?
Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare′a Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli′jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “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 Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.​

The subject is "who Jesus is", all the way through. Notice also that Simon is already being referred to as Peter before Jesus calls him thus in the next sentence. Jesus had already given him the nickname much earlier.
Why do so many ignore the Old Testament example here?

Jesus didn't invent the notion of "giving the Keys of the kingdom" right there on the spot... it is rooted in the Old testament practice of what the King of Israel Bestowed upon His prime Minister.

Just as Jehovah Set up a governmental structure for OT Israel, Jesus is setting up His Governmental Structure for NT Israel, the Church.

Again, Read Isaiah 22:15-24 to gain the scriptural understanding of what it means for the King of Israel to bestow the keys of the kingdom to His prime minister, and you will have no more confusion on this.
Why do so many Catholics ignore the Church Fathers and how they understood that all the Apostles received the keys. Read the Church Fathers and you will have no more confusion on this.
 
Upvote 0

JIMINZ

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2017
6,600
2,358
79
Southern Ga.
✟157,715.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
But doesn't the name Peter or Cephas mean rock? Or did that meaning of the name originate from this passage?

This is the actual place where Jesus renames Peter,

John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

and not as supposed by most people.

Mat 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.
 
Upvote 0

anna ~ grace

Newbie
Supporter
May 9, 2010
9,071
11,925
✟108,146.93
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
some people say that jesus was talking about himself about the rock

matthew 16:18
It is Peter in this context.

Elsewhere, in Daniel, Christ is the Rock. And in other places, too. But Peter, whom Christ literally named "a rock", is referenced here.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,436
11,981
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,733.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I guess I take John as being written from a more theological viewpoint and emphasizing Christ's divinity. So his naming Peter at that moment, when they have just met, the rock could be showing Christ's ability to know the future and anticipate Peter's confession. It seems strange though, since Andrew introduces Christ to Peter as the Messiah and so that seems to spoil Peter being the first to acknowledge that fact as in Matthew. If Andrew knew this from being told by John the Baptist, why didn't he say so in Matthew 16 when asked. So, to me, taking John as a strict chronology of events causes too many contradictions.
Simon is referred to as Peter right throughout the Gospels, and when Mark records in chapter 8 the same conversation had in Matthew 16, the "you are Peter and on this rock" is notably absent. Very strange if it has the importance and implications which Catholics insist.
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Actually the Roman Catholic church had its beginning when Christianity was sanctioned the official government religion and is the reason our constitution has the clause "separation of church and state".

Our Constitution does not have the Clause "Separation of Church and State" - it contains clauses that promote the idea, but when you put quotation marks around the statement, implying its an actual quote from the constitution, you are either misinformed or willfully disingenuous. Also the Constitution's 1st amendment religious freedom provisions were in direct response to the Protestant Church of England's claims of supremacy over the colonies, not the Italian Catholics...

You are really mixing up your history.

Not to say there are not a lot of Christian people in it, just as there are a lot of Christian people in and out of the protestant religions but the organizations themselves suffer a lot of corruption the same as all governments established by man. That is why the only pure government has Christ for its foundation and is pure only by His blood.

Well, I know the difference between the Church governmental offices instituted by Christ and carried out by the apostles in succession, and the fallible men who come and go in the roles, who either live up to the Honor and integrity of the office, or not.

Do you?

Organizational authority and the "offices" set up within it, whether it be Bishops and Popes, Senators and Presidents, or PTA board members and PTA Presidents exist in the same legitimacy they were set up in, whether or not the individuals who come an go who hold the office temporarily live up to the Honor of the office held. Just because we've had bad Popes doesn't negate the authority of the office itself, any more than the fact we've had bad presidents doesn't negate the legitimacy of the office of POTUS.

Catholic and Eastern Orthodox do claim apostolic succession and have both scripture and history to back them. I don't know of any protestant denoms that can claim this or do claim it. Protestants have to claim that the Church is "invisible" to try and maintain legitimacy as "the Church"--but this is biblically untenable, for the Church of the Holy Scriptures is not invisible but consists of a clear apostolic succession of ordained bishops that hold authority by virtue of their apostolic office (a calling that individuals may or may not live up to, just like the President of the U.S.A.). Quite simply, God created a visible Church and who can deny it from scripture. Protestantism, on the other hand, is 20,000 or more denoms that teach a myriad of different things, do not recognize each other's authority or doctrines, do not work together, compete against each other, etc.etc. It seems impossible to me that anyone could claim protestantism as a legitimate form of the one true Church of scripture (or history).
 
  • Agree
Reactions: anna ~ grace
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Why do so many Catholics ignore the Church Fathers and how they understood that all the Apostles received the keys. Read the Church Fathers and you will have no more confusion on this.​
Show me the scripture that teaches it, then we can discuss the ECF commentaries that support the scriptural teaching.​
 
Upvote 0

lambofgod43985889

of christian forum
Supporter
Jun 28, 2018
1,132
385
temuco
✟155,137.00
Country
Chile
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
It is Peter in this context.

Elsewhere, in Daniel, Christ is the Rock. And in other places, too. But Peter, whom Christ literally named "a rock", is referenced here.
i dont think like you
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Yeshua HaDerekh

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it
May 9, 2013
11,444
3,769
Eretz
✟317,123.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Actually, I am a hyperliteralist :sorry: and Matthew is before John in the Bible. So the events in Matthew come before the events in John.

LOL, OK. :) You do know it does not work that way... :)
 
Upvote 0