Peter Is Not The Rock!

[AmericanCatholic]

I notice the Muslims are as large as Roman Catholicism is.

That's not entirely accurate. Just as there are denominations in Christianity, there are various sects and sub-sects in Islam. The idea of a single, monolithic Islamic community which shares a unified, central theology is a myth. That said, in contrast with Catholicism, small churches which have little in common with another (most mainstream American churches, for example), often resort to exploiting their size as a means of creating a form of exceptionalism, reveling their underdog status as some kind of mark of God's special favor upon them. But as you implied, numbers don't matter.

 

[MamaZ]

Do you deny that Petros is the masculine form of the feminine name Petra in Greek?

Are these not common Greek names?

Are there any men named Petra? Any women named Petros?

If a father named Petros has a daughter, might she be named Petra after him?

Of would Petros be the name given a name in order to honor his mother, Petra?

Just curious.

The word "Petros" is only used in the Greek New Testament as a proper name for Simon bar Jona.
Petros is not merely a masculine form of the word petra, but is a different word with a different meaning, though both words are derived from a common root.
The wording of Matt. 16:18 uses two different Greek words. If Jesus was referring the second word to Simon Peter he could have said "epi tauto to petro" (using the masculine gender in the dative case) the same word as "Petros." But what he said was "Epi taute te petra" using Petra, a different Greek word.
The usage of two different words in the inspired Greek original, if representing an Aramaic original (which is in no case certain) would seem to point to the usage of two separate Aramaic words in this passage.

 

[beamishboy]

The topic specifically brought up by beamishboy that I was addressing was apostolic succession, not unification of the churches or the role of Peter as rock. Unless I am mistaken, apostolic succession is a belief that is common to both Catholics and all branches of Orthodoxy (and I thought Anglicanism).

So why the almost obsessive interest in bringing up points of Catholicism, while ignoring that particular points are not unique to Catholicism but indeed shared by other branches of Christianity? It would seem that if the Catholics are so wrong about this, so are the Orthodox, yet there only seems the need to address it as an 'error' of Catholicism. This I do not understand.

I don't believe I confined the error to RCs alone. I mentioned the error but I didn't mention the denomination. If I did mention RCs, it could be because I was speaking to you and the RC faith happened to loom in my mind and for that, I apologise.

I don't accept apostolic succession only because it is not something the Apostles even thought about. My church accepts it but in a different way. We accept it more as history of continuance of the "priesthood" but not as validity. We fully acknowledge our brothers and sisters in the other Protestant denominations. I've already said I believe in correct teaching not historical connections. Jesus tells the Jews that lineage is not important. Don't say Abraham was our father, he tells them. Rather, do what God tells you to do.

In the same vein, I don't care if I'm the great great great grandson of James, our Lord's brother. If I don't follow apostolic teachings as revealed in the NT, I'm not a Christian even if I can show from my DNA that Mary was my great great great grandmother.

 

[AmericanCatholic]

Show me where Timothy was ordained in the sense you speak of

St. Paul references the ordination of St. Timothy in 1 Timothy 4.14.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

St. Paul references the ordination of St. Timothy in 1 Timothy 4.14.

The Testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

1 Time 4:14 No thou be neglecting the in thee grace which was given to thee thru a prophecy/profhteiaV <4394> with placing-on of the hands of the eldership.

Reve 19:10 And I fall toward-place of the feet of him to worship to him and he is saying "be seeing! no. A fellow together-bond-servant of thee I am and of the brothers of thee, of the ones having the testimony of Jesus. To the God worship! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of the prophecy/profhteiaV <4394>.

 

[AmericanCatholic]

The Testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

In the context of this thread, I am not so much concerned with the nature of what was given to St. Timothy as I am with who gave it and how.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

In the context of this thread, I am not so much concerned with the nature of what was given to St. Timothy as I am with who gave it and how.

That word used for "on-placing" of hands is used only 4 times 3 of those in these verses.
I myself do not believe placing on the hands in respect to this is in effect any longer. Hebrew 6 is a pretty fascinating chapter which I will probably translate soon.

1 Time 4:14 No thou be neglecting the in thee grace which was given to thee thru a prophecy with on-placing of the hands of the eldership.

2 Tim 1:6 Thru which cause I am reminding thee to be rekindling the gracious-gift of the God which is in thee thru the on-placing/epiqesewV <1936> of the hands of me.

Hebrew 6:2 Of baptizings of teaching of on-placing/epiqesewV <1936> besides of hands, of resurrection besides of dead and of judgement age-abiding.

Textus Rec.) Hebrews 6:2 baptismwn didachV epiqesewV te ceirwn anastasewV te nekrwn kai krimatoV aiwniou

 

[Rick Otto]

I see a good example in the hands placing, but I don't sense a binding of praxis in it's presentation.

 

[narnia59]

The word "Petros" is only used in the Greek New Testament as a proper name for Simon bar Jona.
Petros is not merely a masculine form of the word petra, but is a different word with a different meaning, though both words are derived from a common root.
The wording of Matt. 16:18 uses two different Greek words. If Jesus was referring the second word to Simon Peter he could have said "epi tauto to petro" (using the masculine gender in the dative case) the same word as "Petros." But what he said was "Epi taute te petra" using Petra, a different Greek word.
The usage of two different words in the inspired Greek original, if representing an Aramaic original (which is in no case certain) would seem to point to the usage of two separate Aramaic words in this passage.

Mamaz, we can go round and round and round....

I understand your opinion is that Jesus did not mean that Peter was the rock. I would disagree. And there are many Protestant Bible scholars who take the Catholic view in this. Here's a few, and about another dozen more if you want to see them.

J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor
Reformed Theological Seminary
By the words “this rock” Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church”. As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus.
“Matthew”
Evangelical Commentary on the Bible
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), page 742
JPK page 30

and another:
​

John A. Broadus
Baptist author
(two quotations from the same work)
Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho”. The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha”.... Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.”Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
(Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356
JPK page 20

​

The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368
JPK pages 17-18
The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.
Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary — New Testament, vol. 2
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78
JPK page 18

​

 

[narnia59]

Did anybody ever come up with the reason Jesus changed Peter's name to 'rock'?

 

[narnia59]

I don't believe I confined the error to RCs alone. I mentioned the error but I didn't mention the denomination. If I did mention RCs, it could be because I was speaking to you and the RC faith happened to loom in my mind and for that, I apologise.

I don't accept apostolic succession only because it is not something the Apostles even thought about. My church accepts it but in a different way. We accept it more as history of continuance of the "priesthood" but not as validity. We fully acknowledge our brothers and sisters in the other Protestant denominations. I've already said I believe in correct teaching not historical connections. Jesus tells the Jews that lineage is not important. Don't say Abraham was our father, he tells them. Rather, do what God tells you to do.

In the same vein, I don't care if I'm the great great great grandson of James, our Lord's brother. If I don't follow apostolic teachings as revealed in the NT, I'm not a Christian even if I can show from my DNA that Mary was my great great great grandmother.

I accept your apology beamishboy (and it's very kind of you to do so). I went back to check to see if my mind was playing tricks on me (it can do that) and you did refer speficially to Catholics. My concern is perhaps it's become so natural a thing for you it requires no conscious effort?

I am curious -- do you believe the validity of the sacraments depend on an ordained priest, or do you feel you yourself could conduct Eucharist?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor
Reformed Theological Seminary
By the words &#8220;this rock&#8221; Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter&#8217;s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter.

What do the RCs do with that Feminine predicate than

Matt 16:18 `And I yet to thee/soi <4671> am saying, that thou art Peter, and upon this/tauth <3778>, the rock I shall be building of Me the 0ut-called, and gates of Hades not shall be prevailing of her;

Hebrew 11:2 For in this/tauth <3778> were testified to the Elders/presbuteroi 3 To Faith we are

Textus Rec.) Matthew 16:18 kagw de soi legw oti su ei petroV kai epi tauth th petra oikodomhsw mou thn ekklhsian kai pulai adou ou katiscusousin authV

 

[Rick Otto]

Originally Posted by Rick Otto

That question would have been answered with a personal pronoun ("you") and would have been consistent with Him personaly addressing Peter. By Him not using the personal pronoun "you" we can presume that He had to either turn from personaly addressing Peter to address all present, which would moderate but not completely dismiss the question of His use of the impersonal pronoun ("this"- instead of "he"), or that He didn't mean this rock was a person, leaving only the rock of truth this person expressed.
​

Or perhaps this view:
One of the top Evangelical, non-Catholic scholars in America, Professor Donald Carson of the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in his book, God With Us, Themes from Matthew says, "Jesus was simply using a pun to say that Peter is the rock on which Jesus would build His Church.

I don't think so. I think Jesus used irony, but I can't think of another pun.

Originally Posted by Rick Otto

Then He would've said "upon you", not "upon this".
​

He was talking to Peter, and he said 'you'. He said ‘You are Peter (rock) and upon this rock….”

Yes of course, he said "you are", but I'm talking about the impersonal pronoun usage following that - "upon this".
Please reconsider & respond.






Originally Posted by Rick Otto

The person scripture repeatedly names as the rock in the OT & NT is Christ, not Peter.

A false dichotomy that is not supported by Scripture. Peter being the visible ‘rock’ does not supercede Christ being ‘the rock’ anymore than Scripture noting the man is the ‘head’ of his family supercedes Christ being the ‘head’ of the body of Christ, or God giving the people ‘one shepherd’, David, when He said that “I myself will shepherd them”.

I've used one of the same determinates of Peter's primacy - preponderance of scriptural usage. Jesus didn't emphasize visibility & the family correlates to the body of Christ in only a very limited sense so I wouldn't use that correlation to define a church office...
so maybe that is a "false dichotomy". (I'm not sure what you mean by that - I'm thinking more like "false analogy" is what you meant.) God advised against a (visible)king for Isreal, so I would think He would feel the same way about the Church having one.

For what other purpose did Christ give Peter the name of "rock" then?

I think that on one level it was irony, Peter being a bit impulsive. Peter's weakness on the other hand, would make him a perfect candidate in that "God's strenth is in our weakness" (we must depend on Him alone).

Why is it do you supposed God sees a human family as needing a visible person in the role of ‘head’ as opposed to each person to take their lead from God directly?

It is a visible organization based on physical, not spiritual pre-requisites.

Could it be that he understood this was necessary for the family to maintain unity? A model he put in place to support the family, but no such model to support the Christian family?

The institution of the family was already in place. If anything, the Church would follow it's lead, not the other way around; but the Church isn't defined by physical blood relationship, the family (in the classic sense) is.



​

Originally Posted by Rick Otto

Then the keys having a symbolic meaning has a point of diminishing returns. That would be the point at which they were unnecessary in assigning the exact same authority to the other apostles. Your over-emphasis is self-serving in this respect.
​

A rather subjective view when one could equally assume that under-emphasis can play a self-serving role as well?

A valid point in itself (and I was pondering it as it ocurred to me), but it doesn't address the same authority being dispensed to at least a dozen others in Matt 18.


Originally Posted by Rick Otto

Which ignores the Melchizedek king/priest model that Jesus presented.

More than can be counted on one hand? I don't think so. Again you over-emphasize, exagerrating a meaning to suit your authority preference.
​

Again, a quite subjective view of the purpose of emphasis. If the papacy was viewed to be in the role of the OT high-priest, you might have a point. Since it is not, Christ as high-priest in the order of Melchizedek is not ignored at all.

It is ignored in the sense that you have presented the view of the papacy in terms of OT kingship, which wasn't a priestly position at all, and in the sense that God provided His own vicar - The Holy Spirit who requires no successor or apologetic (to believers) for infallability, nor apology for lack of impeccability.



Originally Posted by Rick Otto

That was king-only. We're talkin' king/priest, & a nation thereof, and a dissemination of the exact same authority amongst at least dozen people*, regardless of a single instance of use of metaphor, no actual keys existing or having been literaly given.

* the Matt 18 scripture shows He was addressing "disciples", not "apostles".
​

Are you saying that the king alone was in charge of the palace and had the keys? That he did not designate a single individual for this role?

I'm sayin' the analogy is inadequate in its scope.

If the single instance of the use of the metaphor had no OT roots to foreshadow it, one might wonder about its purpose. But since Peter, and those who heard him speak to Peter, would have been familiar with the book of Isaiah where the reference clearly equates with the king placing one individual to be in charge of the palace, and since this model is seen many times throughout the Jewish kingships, one can assume they would draw from that knowledge to understand what receiving the keys to the kingdom meant.

I can't assume it, brother. God advised against an earthly king for Isreal. That makes it doubtful that He would use one as a model for His organization.

BTW, I'm sorely appreciating your lack of animosity in all this.

 

[sunlover1]

Did anybody ever come up with the reason Jesus changed Peter's name to 'rock'?

Actually yes, some of us have thrown some ideas out there,
Why do you believe God/Jesus changed peoples names?
Changing Simon's name to Peter (rock) was a big deal to
be sure, just as changing Saul's name to Paul was a big deal.
Just as the names of places were changed signified a big deal.
Many believe that God gave Peter that name to sort of
memorialize that moment of that revelation. Some
believe that the name changes were prophetic words,
as they were given "ahead" of the events for the men...
(after events for the location name changes iirc).
There were many many names changed in Scripture,
and Peter's is just as important as any others including
Pauls. But as far as this rock that jesus said He'd build
His church upon... See below:

The Word of Yahuweh can't be any plainer than this.

The Savior for whom the Rock was named, asked His disciples the most important question ever posed: "Who do you say (lego - affirm and maintain, advise and teach) I Am (eimi - I exist and am present as)?" To which, a disciple named for the astuteness of his revelation, responded: "Simon (a transliteration of the Hebrew name Shim’own, meaning to listen, understand, discern, regard, and proclaim) Petros (a masculine proper name meaning pebble or stone) gave the answer, ‘The Messiah, the Son of the living God.’" (Matthew 16:15-16)

Affirming this live-saving truth, "Yahushua said (lego), ‘Blessed (makarios - a poetic term denoting transcendent happiness in a life beyond labor and death) are you Shim’own (the one who listens, understands, discerns, regards, and proclaims), son of (bar) Yonah (from yownah, meaning the dove; the name of a Yahudi sent to Nineveh, Assyria whose life and book serve as a prophetic metaphor for Yahushua saving Gentiles), because flesh and blood did not make this manifest (apokalupto - disclose by baring), but My Father who is in Heaven." (Matthew 16:17) As is usually true with Scripture, every name and nuance was carefully chosen, revealing subtle and profound truths.

What follows is important. Petros/Peter isn’t the petra/bedrock. The recognition that "Yahushua is the Messiah, the Son of the living God," is the foundation upon which the ekklesia/called-out assembly would be restored and established. Beyond the evidence sprinkled throughout the Tanach, identifying the Rock with Yahshua, "Petros" was a man and every reference to "petra/bedrock" is feminine.

"Indeed (de), I (kago) say (logos) concerning this (hoti - as a marker of equivalence for identifying and explaining this) to you (soi), you (su) are (ei) Petros (a masculine proper noun meaning pebble or stone), and (kai) upon/by/in/with (epi - "upon" when used with things that are at rest, "by" when used in relationship to people, "with" when used in connection with authority, and "in" used in reference to an observation) this one (taute - singular feminine demonstrative pronoun) Rock (petra - bedrock, a feminine noun; a large stone which projects itself) I shall build by edifying, promoting, and restoring (oikodomeo - rebuild and establish, strengthen and enable, instruct and improve) My (mou) called out gathering (ekklesia)." (Matthew 16:18)

English translations all leave "hoti/concerning this" out of their renderings of Yahshua’s answer. Had it been included, no rational person would have thought that Petros, rather than his answer, was the foundation of the ekklesia. The source of edification and restoration is the Savior, not his flawed and imperfect disciple.

Believing Peter is the Rock is irrational and delusional. The evidence of Yahuweh's Word is irrevocable/irrefutable and supercedes, trumps, pre-empts, negates, refutes, and proves to be a lie all that oppose/contradict it, whether said opposition is human or church dogma.

\
Has anyone answered this post yet?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Affirming this live-saving truth, "Yahushua said (lego), &#8216;Blessed (makarios - a poetic term denoting transcendent happiness in a life beyond labor and death) are you Shim&#8217;own (the one who listens, understands, discerns, regards, and proclaims), son of (bar)

Greetings and that was interesting.

The Tribe of "simeon" is listed in Revelation using the greek word #4826.
Is that a different form of the one used for "simon" in Matt 4:18?

Gene 29:33 Shim`own "that YHWH heard that being hated I, and He is given to me moreover this-one [2nd born of Leah]

Reve 7:7 Out of tribe of Simeon/sumewn <4826>, twleve thousands [*having been sealed];[Listed 7th in order]

Matthew 4:18 About-walking, the Jesus, beside the Sea of the Galilee, He saw two brothers, Simon/simwna <4613> the being said Peter/petron <4074>, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishers.

 

[Rick Otto]

Actually yes, some of us have thrown some ideas out there,
Why do you believe God/Jesus changed peoples names?
Changing Simon's name to Peter (rock) was a big deal to
be sure, just as changing Saul's name to Paul was a big deal.
Just as the names of places were changed signified a big deal.
Many believe that God gave Peter that name to sort of
memorialize that moment of that revelation. Some
believe that the name changes were prophetic words,
as they were given "ahead" of the events for the men...
(after events for the location name changes iirc).
There were many many names changed in Scripture,
and Peter's is just as important as any others including
Pauls. But as far as this rock that jesus said He'd build
His church upon... See below:


\
Has anyone answered this post yet?

Narnia did, but only in part:
Originally Posted by lokt

What follows is important. Petros/Peter isn’t the petra/bedrock. The recognition that "Yahushua is the Messiah, the Son of the living God," is the foundation upon which the ekklesia/called-out assembly would be restored and established. Beyond the evidence sprinkled throughout the Tanach, identifying the Rock with Yahshua, "Petros" was a man and every reference to "petra/bedrock" is feminine.

Believing Peter is the Rock is irrational and delusional. The evidence of Yahuweh's Word is irrevocable/irrefutable and supercedes, trumps, pre-empts, negates, refutes, and proves to be a lie all that oppose/contradict it, whether said opposition is human or church dogma.



​

Regarding the blue -- if at the time of Peter's profession of faith, Jesus actually changed his name to "Cephas", one might logically conclude the two are associated. However, since Jesus actually changed Peter's name to Cephas at their first meeting, this action of giving Peter the name meaning 'rock' is clearly quite independent of the profession of faith.

Regarding the red, the reason that every reference to petra is feminine is because that's the gender of the noun in Greek. If when the NT was actually referring to a stone it used the word 'petros', one might be able to logically conclude there is a difference in meaning between 'petros' and 'petra' in the NT. However, this is not the case -- the only time the NT uses the term 'petros' is in direct reference to the person Peter, never in reference to a small stone. (The word lithos is used in that case). So the question must become -- is the intention of the Greek to point to a clear difference in meaning between stone and rock? If so, lithos/petra would have been consistent with the rest of the writing in the NT. Using 'petros' to consistently denote 'stone' in other areas of the NT could indicate this as well.

Instead, 'petros' is solely reserved in denoting Peter. So we have 'petra' (a word that we know means rock but is in a feminine form), 'petros' (only used to denote the man Peter which is definitely not feminine), and 'lithos' (used for other references to stones). Concluding the Greek is attempting to state that there is a great difference between 'petros' and 'petra' instead of simply making a quite logical decision to not translate the meaning of the name given to the MAN Peter in feminine form is not really logical although I would not call it irrational and delusional, for I do not propose to know the state of mind of others. Obviously you do not have a problem with that, or in believing that your personal interpretation is infallible in some way, as your view about opposition to your interpretation (rather than the word of God) would indicate.

And speaking of questions never really answered -- why did Christ change Peter's name at all? This little snippet from gotquestions is interesting (a fundamentalist site I believe)

When God gave someone a new name is was usually to establish a new identity. God changed Abram’s "high father" name to Abraham "father of multitude" (Genesis 17:5). God changed Jacob’s "supplanter" name to Israel “having power with God” (Genesis 32:28). He changed Simon’s "God has heard" name to Peter "rock" (John 1:42). Why did Jesus occasionally call Peter “Simon” after He had changed His name to Peter? My guess is that Jesus called him Simon whenever he was not being the “rock” God called him to be. The same is true for Jacob. God continued to call him Jacob to remind him of his past and to remind to depend on God’s strength.

http://www.gotquestions.org/name-change.html

So, why did Christ change Peter's name to rock again?? What is this new 'identify' he received?

 

[beamishboy]

I am curious -- do you believe the validity of the sacraments depend on an ordained priest, or do you feel you yourself could conduct Eucharist?

Hi, the validity of the sacraments does not depend on any priest. I believe (like what Paul wrote) in the priesthood of all believers. I remind myself that the veil has been torn down and the role of priesthood is gone for ever.

The validity of the sacraments is in Christ alone. It's His cloak of righteousness that gives us righteousness. The NT has never circumscribed the administering of the sacraments to only specially ordained priests.

For example, the Great Commission is commonly said to be issued to all believers. We are to preach the Word. But the Great Commission also includes a command to baptise all in the name of our Triune God. If baptism could only be conducted by a validly ordained priest, the Great Commission which is generally accepted to be issued to all believers would have a qualification to restrict baptism to only ordained priests.

The same with the Eucharist. Paul wrote at great length about people who shouldn't participate in the Eucharist. The administering of it is so inconsequential that he didn't even touch on it. If it didn't bother the Apostle Paul, I don't see why it should bother us.

However, for practical purposes, the church (any church in fact) needs to have some order. So, the local church will have some rules for administrative purposes.

The beamishboy will not baptise or consecrate communion bread and wine not because God forbids it but because the beamishboy wants to have some order in the church. It is not wrong in the eyes of God for the beamishboy to administer the sacraments but it may be a little disorderly. Hehe. Incidentally, the beamishboy holds the candle by the font during baptism and the beamishboy is always by the priest during consecration because the beamishboy is an altar boy.

 

[visionary]

LAter Peter denied the Lord three times... in the sink or swim inthe waters of life.. Peter was like a rock..

 

[MamaZ]

well He was movable. we see that with the denial of Jesus and we see this when Paul had to confront Him for his sin. Now Jesus church is not built on such. Jesus Church is built on the very Fact that Jesus became sin for us so that we might become the righteousness of Him. Peter had nothing to do with that.. Peter as well as all the other Apostles were sent out to preach Christ and Him crucified and risen..

 

[Anglian]

Dear Narnia,

The Anglican Church does hold with Apostolic Succession, but Beamishboy has made it clear before that when his Church disagrees with him, he prefers his own view, and, to be fair, I don't think Anglicanism has an official line on this.

I'd be really interested in knowing what the purpose of Our Lord would have been in calling Peter a 'little rock'? After the Resurrection Peter, like the rest of the Apostles, was faithful unto death. Like the rest of us, he stumbled and fell, but he got up. That is what Christian pilgrims on the road do. When we are as faithful as St. Peter after receiveing the Risen Christ, we can cast our own little stones.

The fact is that the early Christians did not deny the reference to Peter, but they interpreted it in two ways - Peter's confession of faith, or Peter's person. Not one of those who spoke Greek and lived in a Greaco-Roman culture ever came up with the interpretation modern Protestants do, and really, even to those who believe as I do, there is an air of desperate semantic fudging about that line of argument. Apart from anything else, it seems to insist its view is the only possible one - which two thousand years of Christian writing clearly contradicts. I am begining to wonder whether Protestants are not far more authoritarian in their reading, because it is their own very personal reading and so any challenge to it is taken personally.

There is such a lot of misundertanding of the Roman position that I can only, once more, thank you for your patience. Both John Paul II and Pope Benedict have, indeed, made overtures about how the Papacy might evolve to meet the many challenges facing Christianity in the modern world, but those who have, effectively, established their own infallible positions are unlikely to relinquish them to another infallible bishop.

Peace,

Anglian