Peter the Rock / Protestant and Catholic

Maniel said:

I'm having some discussions with a friend of mine who is a Christian Catholic, in regards to the following verse:

18 “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

From this verse among others the Catholic church seem to legitimize the church and all it's traditions, doctrines and sacraments.

Was Jesus saying that the whole church was build upon Peter and his successors, and so established the Catholic Church as the One church, with the rest of all denominations being "broken" churches, scattered boats flowing astray from the Ark?

I'm trying to figure out the different interpretations of the the verse above from both a Catholic and Protestant point of view.

The two articles:

Is Peter the rock on which the Church is built? | CARM.org

Peter the Rock

Carm.com: The author is making the argument that the greek word "petra" (feminine), meaning little stone, and petros (masculine) meaning unmoveable rock.
"...you are Peter (πέτρος, petros) and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build My church..."

Later Peter is showing himself not as an immovable rock, but one that denies the Lord 3 times. The Catholic claim is that in the context Jesus is referring Peter as The Rock, the protestant however is making the context broader by what is happening later. I hope I'm making some sense, this is quite
new to me.

The Catholic article makes its defence:
"As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant “rock.”"
‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’

The Catholic defence is that the protestant position is making a wrong interpretation of the Greek word Petros and Petra.

My final question is: What did Jesus actually mean? Was Peter The Rock, or was Jesus himself the foundation of the whole church? Is there a counter-argument to the Catholic Article and the Protestant, where does the "conflict" meet its end?

Click to expand...

Your answer is contained in the scripture you cited. Jesus was the one speaking, and Jesus said he was building his church, not Peter's church. “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

Peter's own writing also shows the church was not built on him, but upon Christ. Peter wrote:

"You also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

For this is contained in Scripture:
“BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone,
AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”

This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve,
“THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED,
THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone,”

and,
“A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE”;
for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed." [end of Peter's quote]

The corner stone the rest of the church is built on is Christ.

Christ is the one stone that will not disappoint people if they do believe in him! That's not Peter. (Psalm 146:3)

Christ is the one that was rejected to the detriment of the ones who reject him! That again is not Peter."For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son." John 3:17-18

This part of Peter's scripture makes the Catholic argument unreasonable if they claim there is a succession of human Popes who are the cornerstone of the Christian church, because the scripture speaks of only one person being the cornerstone, not multiple leaders being that stone. I don't know if that's what they claim, but if they do it's unreasonable because the scripture speaks of one: “BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone,
AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”

Now Christ did give Peter the keys to the kingdom, in that after Christ died Peter was the first to offer the good new to the Jews that had not accepted Christ before he died, then to the Samaritans, and then finally to the gentiles. Peter was the first one to do that in each case. And in those incidents when he did it people were converted and were also baptized in Holy Spirit. But the church was not built on Peter. Christ told his apostles when he was here that they only have one leader (teacher), the Christ. For Peter to even accept that position of being leader of Christ's church he would do so in contradiction of Christ's words, and assume Christ's position, thus becoming apostate.

And where in scripture does Christ tell his disciples to take on the leadership title of church Father? The word 'pope' derives from the Latin word 'papa' or father. Instead Christ told his apostles the opposite, not to do that:

"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9 By this same scripture Christ also told them they only have one leader or teacher, the Christ. "And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ" vs 10

Peter never took on that title, he was never the Pope of the church or its leader. That's not in the Bible. It was made up after the apostles died. Arguing over the name Peter meaning rock (which it does), and therefore claiming he must be the rock mass in your scripture cannot help your friend justify the Catholic claim Peter took on the position of Pope (Church Father). That's nowhere in scripture. And it contradicts the direction Jesus gave Peter as cited in the scripture above. If Peter did that he would have been committing apostasy by assuming Christ's position. The scriptures don't show Peter ever did that.

Another bit of evidence you might share showing Peter was no Pope is that the Bible record shows apostle Paul wielded as much authority in Christian congregations as Peter did. Paul even publicly rebuked Peter at least once for sinning. Furthermore, Paul was not directed by Peter or the bunch of Christians in Jerusalem. If Peter was over the Christian congregation as leader certainly all Christians back then would have to follow his directions. If they didn't he could be no leader of theirs because of not leading them. Paul didn't even Go to Jerusalem to meet Peter until 3 years after he had already been preaching the gospel to gentiles-Galatians 1:16-18. He didn't receive permission or directions from Peter or his Jewish group in Jerusalem to do that preaching either. And even after Paul met Peter his activity was still not directed by Peter. So Paul could not have considered Peter his superior. Neither could Peter have considered Paul his subordinate. The only big occasion in scripture that I remember, when decisions about Christian procedures and doctrines were settled over disputes and the outcome was not decided exclusively by Paul, was when Paul and a whole council of Christians in Jerusalem decided the outcome. And their decision went in favor of Paul's council. That decision was not decided solely by Peter. It was over the matter of whether a Christian male must be circumcised to be a Christian?

The Catholic church arose after the death of the apostles, not before their death. So anyone telling you the Catholic church was the first Christian church is incorrect. The first Christian church consisted of Jews in Jerusalem, who then spread their message from there. Once Paul was baptized he immediately preached the truth in Damascus and eventually went out from a Christian congregation already established in Antioch, traveling to spread the gospel-Acts 9. During none of those years did Christians call their church the Catholic church. They were providentially called Christians in the Bible record- Acts 11:26. Sometimes when writing to a specific church in a certain locale they would be addressed in a letter by that locale or a congregation in that specific locale. The Bible never calls them Catholics.

Maniel said:

I'm having some discussions with a friend of mine who is a Christian Catholic, in regards to the following verse:

18 “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

From this verse among others the Catholic church seem to legitimize the church and all it's traditions, doctrines and sacraments.

Was Jesus saying that the whole church was build upon Peter and his successors, and so established the Catholic Church as the One church, with the rest of all denominations being "broken" churches, scattered boats flowing astray from the Ark?

I'm trying to figure out the different interpretations of the the verse above from both a Catholic and Protestant point of view.

The two articles:

Is Peter the rock on which the Church is built? | CARM.org

Peter the Rock

Carm.com: The author is making the argument that the greek word "petra" (feminine), meaning little stone, and petros (masculine) meaning unmoveable rock.
"...you are Peter (πέτρος, petros) and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build My church..."

Later Peter is showing himself not as an immovable rock, but one that denies the Lord 3 times. The Catholic claim is that in the context Jesus is referring Peter as The Rock, the protestant however is making the context broader by what is happening later. I hope I'm making some sense, this is quite new to me.

The Catholic article makes its defence:
"As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant “rock.”"
‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’

The Catholic defence is that the protestant position is making a wrong interpretation of the Greek word Petros and Petra.

My final question is: What did Jesus actually mean? Was Peter The Rock, or was Jesus himself the foundation of the whole church? Is there a counter-argument to the Catholic Article and the Protestant, where does the "conflict" meet its end?

Click to expand...

It is pretty clear from Scripture that Christ said He would build His Church on the Rock of Peter. Not his faith, not his confession of faith, but the man. Notice how God renamed him, just as He did in the OT when changing someone's mission in life.

concretecamper said:

It is pretty clear from Scripture that Christ said He would build His Church on the Rock of Peter. Not his faith, not his confession of faith, but the man. Notice how God renamed him, just as He did in the OT when changing someone's mission in life.

Click to expand...

I also notice that he said this to Peter, not 200+ men coming later in time claiming to have inherited whatever Peter got.

It is also evident from the passage that Christ said he would "build (up)" his church through Peter (among others?), NOT that he was founding it on Peter or giving his church over to Peter.

Albion said:

I also notice that he said this to Peter, not 200+ men coming later in time claiming to have inherited whatever Peter got.

Click to expand...

that is becasue He didnt found His Church yet.

Albion said:

It is also evident from the passage that Christ said he would "build (up)" his church through Peter (among others?

Click to expand...

go ahead and add "up" after build. Add to scripture if it makes you feel better. But I'll stick with what is written.

Albion said:

NOT that he was founding it on Peter or giving his church over to Peter

Click to expand...

Scripture doesn't support this idea.

Albion said:

I also notice that he said this to Peter, not 200+ men coming later in time claiming to have inherited whatever Peter got.

Click to expand...

of.course he couldn't say it to Peter's successors, they weren't alive yet.

concretecamper said:

that is becasue He didnt found His Church yet.

Click to expand...

That doesn't change anything. Whenever it is that we date the founding of Christ's church, it isn't the meaning of "building" his church--which was Christ's charge to Peter.

of.course he couldn't say it to Peter's successors, they weren't alive yet.

Click to expand...

He didn't say it about them, either, which means that it is not based on the Bible.

concretecamper said:

that is becasue He didnt found His Church yet.
go ahead and add "up" after build. Add to scripture if it makes you feel better. But I'll stick with what is written.

Scripture doesn't support this idea.
of.course he couldn't say it to Peter's successors, they weren't alive yet.

Click to expand...

You said......…………….
"go ahead and add "up" after build. Add to scripture if it makes you feel better. But I'll stick with what is written."

That is not a true statement.

What Scripture DOES NOT SUPPORT is Apostolic succession!!!

AGAIN...…….There is NOT ONE single Scripture in the Bible that validates, supports or even suggests such a thing so there is no way in the world that you can stick with something that does not exist.

Catholics are taught that Peter was the first Pope and that there has been a succession, one after the other, of Popes that followed Peter. One excellent example of this is found within the foyer of many Catholic churches. As you walk in the front door, there are a series of large plaques that dominate the main wall. On each plaque is the name of a Pope. Starting with the current living Pope, they trace the names of every Pope sequentially back in history to Apostle Peter, who they claim was the first Pope. Yet the office of Pope did not exist for the first 600 years of history. Such displays are a powerful deception to the masses, for historically and Biblically this is simply untrue.
The false doctrine of Roman Catholic apostolic succession!

IT is just not there!

what did these keys allow peter to do that other apostles of the lamb were not able to do?

what examples of this can be found in scripture?

concretecamper said:

It is pretty clear from Scripture that Christ said He would build His Church on the Rock of Peter. Not his faith, not his confession of faith, but the man. Notice how God renamed him, just as He did in the OT when changing someone's mission in life.

Click to expand...

No sir, it is not clear. It is only clear to those who has misunderstood the Scriptures and have believed men instead of the Word of God.

1 Corth. 3:9-11 says......……….
"For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

Read more: Why Did Jesus Say Peter Was The Rock On Which The Church Would Be Built?

So, what did Jesus mean when He referred to building His church upon this rock? First, Jesus stated that Peter did not come up with his answer on his own, but that it was revealed to him by God the Father in heaven. Second, when Jesus said, “…thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church…”, He was making two linguistic points. The first point was a comparison of the name Peter to the word rock.

The New Testament was written in Greek. The name Peter in Greek is petros, meaning a pebble or small stone. The word for rock in the Greek is petra, meaning a massive rock or bedrock. Jesus was making the linguistic point that this simple truth that God had revealed to Peter, the pebble, about Jesus being the Christ, the rock.

The second linguistic point was that the rock was the foundation or bedrock upon which He would build His church. This was a reference to salvation through Jesus the Christ. This is referred to in several other passages as follows:

Isaiah 28:16...……..
"Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste."

See also Ephesians 1:15-23; Ephesians 4:15-16; Ephesians 5:23; 1 Peter 2:1-8----------

It is clear from these passages that the church was built upon Jesus Christ, not Peter.

Albion said:

That doesn't change anything. Whenever it is that we date the founding of Christ's church, it isn't the meaning of "building" his church--which was Christ's charge to Peter.

Click to expand...

I see you confusion. Christ said He would build His Church.

Albion said:

He didn't say it about them, either, which means that it is not based on the Bible.

Click to expand...

until you and your cohort major1 can show us all where Christ says listen to the bible, stop with this silly line of logic.

Major1 said:

No sir, it is not clear. It is only clear to those who has misunderstood the Scriptures and have believed men instead of the Word of God.

Click to expand...

it has been clear since the founding of the Church. You subscribe to novel ideas and bad scripture interpretation.

THE W said:

what did these keys allow peter to do that other apostles of the lamb were not able to do?

what examples of this can be found in scripture?

Click to expand...

in the Davidic Kingdom, what did "keys" signify? Answer this question and it will become clear.

concretecamper said:

I see you confusion. Christ said He would build His Church.

Click to expand...

I am the one who said Christ referred to "building" his church and that this does not refer to a grant of universal jurisdiction to Peter. To build does not mean to found or to govern.

Albion said:

I am the one who said Christ referred to "building" his church and that this does not refer to a grant of universal jurisdiction to Peter. To build does not mean to found or to govern.

Click to expand...

the word "building" doesnt mean jurisdiction. Not sure why you are focusing on the word "building". "Keys" signify the jurisdiction.

BNR32FAN said:

Apostolic succession preceded the RCC. There are verses in the scriptures that validate the church’s authority to make decisions. The scriptures were written by men whom authority was given by God. Jesus didn’t write anything it was the church elders who wrote the scriptures. Also keep in mind it was the church that determined what scriptures were inspired by God. So your trusting the very same men to determine which scriptures are from God but you can’t trust them to determine who the next church elders should be.

Click to expand...

Trusting men in a current church to pick other men in their church to be elders, does not give any of them authority to be a single leader over the whole Christian congregation, or even their own church group. While the Bible does give elders authority to make decisions it does not give them authority to decide that anything they think is appropriate will be upheld in the church, or make any decision they want about what is not appropriate among the members. Nor does it give them authority to even decide everything Christians must believe to be Christians. Those ideas go against biblical teachings. Your simple statement that they have authority to make decisions doesn't go against scripture. For instance, the Bible does not list marijuana, yet the church can scripturally prohibit members who get intoxicated by it, the same as they can prohibit members who are drunkards-something the Bible does speak about.

As for enforcing beliefs, I'll cite some big ones. Too me I say big only because these are commonly considered deal breakers by most people claiming Christianity. Elders or churches who are claiming all Christian members in their church must interpret the rich man and Lazarus story as either literal, or that they must interpret it as figurative in order to be a Christian member. That idea is not taught in scripture. And I'm speaking of the literal meaning of everlasting torment, or the figurative interpretation of torment meaning everlasting death to those who reject Christ. Christ did not say how one interprets that story determines their salvation.

Here's an even bigger one: While I agree that all the heavenly bound church members of Christ view both the Father and Son as their God, agreeing they both are God over angels and men, and that they are both worshipped, yet scriptures say nothing about worshipping the Holy Spirit, or that a Christian must interpret the Holy spirit as a separate person, and not part of the Son and part of the Father as some scriptures indicate- See Rev 5:6 " Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth."

The problem I see with Christians who make such assertions is that those assertion by them are also claiming Christ judges people on that basis. And I don't think anyone I know would judge a person's life prospect on the basis of interpreting that rich man and Lazarus story figuratively or literally. Or deciding if the Holy Spirit is part of how the Father and Son are as beings as Rev 5:6 suggests, or rather a totally separate entity from the Father and Son. Perhaps God used such language to see how we judge each other based on our different views about such things. Possibly in order to pick who is fit to judge others in their kingdom. To me that's a much more logical reason for those descriptions than believing Christ is deciding the eternal fate of everyone based on interpreting his language there.

It makes sense everyone must accept both Father and Son as God, because as Christ said, "worship your God and serve him only." Therefore, if people do not accept them both as God and worship both then they will not serve both. I believe with some it's just a matter of semantics rather than what they actually don't do. But everyone who lives will eventually acknowledge the Father and Son as their God and worship both, just as scriptures explicitly state about both the Father and Son, but do not explicitly state about the Holy Spirit. Of course if my belief is correct that they are the Holy Spirit, meaning it is a part of each one of them, then yes, Holy Spirit is worshipped too, just not as a separate being.

concretecamper said:

in the Davidic Kingdom, what did "keys" signify? Answer this question and it will become clear.

Click to expand...

doesn't answer the question of what peter was able to do that the other apostles of the lamb could not.

try again.

concretecamper said:

the word "building" doesnt mean jurisdiction.

Click to expand...

Exactly. So there goes the argument that Matthew 16:18 refers to the Papacy.

THE W said:

doesn't answer the question of what peter was able to do that the other apostles of the lamb could not.

Click to expand...

what on earth are you talking about?

Albion said:

Exactly. So there goes the argument that Matthew 16:18 refers to the Papacy.

Click to expand...

I'll say it slowly for texting K-E-Y-S

concretecamper said:

what on earth are you talking about?

Click to expand...

what did these keys allow peter to do that the other apostles could not?

THE W said:

what did these keys allow peter to do that the other apostles could not?

Click to expand...

you obviously did not look up what Keys meant in the Davidic Kingdom. Stick with you man made traditions and dont follow scripture. Like the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.