Peter Is Not The Rock!

[JacktheCatholic]

The Pope has that beat though

http://christianforums.com/search.php?searchid=2926134

Showing results "pope" 1 to 25 of 109
Search took 1.14 seconds.

Now there is a shocker.

 

[archierieus]

Well, well, still strong on the Peter issues, I see! Been busy elsewhere and thought I would check out what is going on. This is a perennial, isn't it? Wonder if there ever will be some kind of resolution?

Dave

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Well, well, still strong on the Peter issues, I see! Been busy elsewhere and thought I would check out what is going on. This is a perennial, isn't it? Wonder if there ever will be some kind of resolution?

Dave

Yep...

It comes back every year. LOL

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Tu Es Petrus

There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).


Peter the Rock


Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was that—aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2—in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.


Look at the scene


Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when "Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi" (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, "You are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).

The significance of the event must have been clear to the other apostles. As devout Jews they knew at once that the location was meant to emphasize the importance of what was being done. None complained of Simon being singled out for this honor; and in the rest of the New Testament he is called by his new name, while James and John remain just James and John, not Boanerges.


Promises to Peter


When he first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)’" (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).

Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.

Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).

Finally, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, "Do you love me?" (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me more than these?" (John 21:15), the word "these" referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives.

Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled.


Who is the rock?


Now take a closer look at the key verse: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18). Disputes about this passage have always been related to the meaning of the term "rock." To whom, or to what, does it refer? Since Simon’s new name of Peter itself means rock, the sentence could be rewritten as: "You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church." The play on words seems obvious, but commentators wishing to avoid what follows from this—namely the establishment of the papacy—have suggested that the word rock could not refer to Peter but must refer to his profession of faith or to Christ.

From the grammatical point of view, the phrase "this rock" must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God") is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.

As an analogy, consider this artificial sentence: "I have a car and a truck, and it is blue." Which is blue? The truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun "it." This is all the more clear if the reference to the car is two sentences earlier, as the reference to Peter’s profession is two sentences earlier than the term rock.


Another alternative


The previous argument also settles the question of whether the word refers to Christ himself, since he is mentioned within the profession of faith. The fact that he is elsewhere, by a different metaphor, called the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4-8) does not disprove that here Peter is the foundation. Christ is naturally the principal and, since he will be returning to heaven, the invisible foundation of the Church that he will establish; but Peter is named by him as the secondary and, because he and his successors will remain on earth, the visible foundation. Peter can be a foundation only because Christ is the cornerstone.

In fact, the New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5-6, Rev. 21:14). One cannot take a single metaphor from a single passage and use it to twist the plain meaning of other passages. Rather, one must respect and harmonize the different passages, for the Church can be described as having different foundations since the word foundation can be used in different senses.


Look at the Aramaic


Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while "rock" is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra?

Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, "You will be called Cephas"). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church."

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of "small stone" and "large rock" in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).

Some of the effect of Christ’s play on words was lost when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church."

Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, "and the Rock was Christ" though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from "Rock . . . rock."

If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew’s Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.

The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy.


source: LINK
​

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

You Can't Get Past this Rock
By Tim Staples
source: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0611btb.asp

Few texts have occasioned the spilling of more ink than Matthew 16:18–19:

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. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
​

Although all twelve apostles were present, Jesus promised Peter alone the keys of the kingdom. The keys symbolize Christ’s authority over the kingdom of heaven on earth—the Church. Yet many Protestants believe the two "rocks" in the Greek text have different meanings: "Thou art Petros, and on this petra I will build my church." They believe Petros, the first "rock," refers to a small rock (Peter) and petra, the second "rock," means a massive boulder—either Jesus or Peter’s confession of faith. Thus the argument concludes that Jesus did not build his Church upon Peter but upon either himself or Peter’s faith.

This is not how Catholics understand this passage. There are ten reasons for why we believe that Peter is undeniably the rock of the Church.

We’re Not in Little Rock

1. There is good evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic. Both Papias and Irenaeus told us that in the second century. More importantly, and more certainly, Jesus would have spoken his discourse of Matthew 16 in Aramaic, not Greek. Although Greek was the dominant language of the Roman Empire in the first century, most of the Jewish people Jesus spoke to were not fluent in it. They spoke Aramaic.

There is also biblical evidence, in John 1:42, that Jesus used Aramaic in the naming of Peter:

[Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter).
​

The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic name Kepha, which simply means "rock." There was no "small rock" to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter. Even well-respected Protestant scholars agree on this point. Baptist scholar D. A. Carson writes:

The underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; at most probably kepha was used in both clauses ("you are kepha" and "on this kepha"), since the word was used both for a name and for a "rock." The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8, Zondervan, 368)
​

Rocky Road

2. In Koine Greek (the dialect used by the authors of the New Testament), petros and petra are the masculine and feminine form of a word with the same root and the same definition—"rock." Therefore, there is no "small rock" in the Greek text either. So why did Matthew use two different words for "rock" in the same verse?

Petra was a common word for "rock" in Greek. It is used fifteen times to mean "rock," "rocks," or "rocky" in the New Testament. Petros is an ancient Greek term that was not commonly used in Koine Greek at all. In fact, it was never otherwise used in the New Testament except when Jesus changed Peter’s name from Simon to Peter.

It follows that when the Gospel of Matthew was translated into Greek, petra would have been used for "rock," but petra is a feminine noun. It would have been improper to call Peter "petra," and so petros, the masculine form, was used for his name.

3. There are several words the inspired author could have used for "rock" or "stone" in Greek. Petra and lithos were the most common and were used interchangeably. Any connotation of small or large depends on context. The words simply mean "rock" or "stone."

In the Septuagint, in Joshua 5:2–3, "God said to Joshua, ‘Make flint knives and circumcise the people of Israel again the second time.’ So Joshua made flint knives [out of rocks]." One cannot make a stone knife out of a boulder, but it can be done out of a small rock that is manageable by hand.

Though it can be argued that lithos is more commonly used for "small rock" or "stone," we have examples of it being used as "large stone" as well. In Matthew 28:2, it is used for the large stone that was used to seal the tomb of Christ. Christ refers to himself as a "stone" in Matthew 21:42–44. It is used as "small stone," for example, in Matthew 4:3, when the devil shows Jesus some small stones (Greek: lithoi) and tempts him to turn them into bread. In John 10:31, certain Jews pick up lithoi to stone Jesus. Perhaps most importantly, in 1 Peter 2:5, Peter himself uses lithoi to describe the people of God as "living stones . . . built into a spiritual house." He does not call the body of Christ petroi. The only word that is never used to denote "small stone" or "small rock" in the New Testament is petros.

Peter himself had an opportunity to use that word in 1 Peter 2:5, but he did not. The word petros is uniquely applied to Peter in Scripture and is never used to connote "small rock."

Carson also pointed out that the large/small distinction is found only in ancient Greek, which was used from the eighth to the fourth century B.C., and even then it was confined largely to poetry. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, used from the fourth century B.C. to the fifth century A.D. Carson agrees with Catholics that there is no distinction in definition between petros and petra.

One of the most respected and referenced Greek dictionaries among Evangelicals is Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. In a most candid and honest statement about Matthew 16:18, Oscar Cullman, a contributing editor to this work, writes:

The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text . . . suggests a material identity between petra and Petros . . . as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. . . . Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . . . The idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable. . . . For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of "thou art Rock" and "on this rock I will build" shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected. (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 6, Eerdmans, 98–99, 108)
​

4. If Matthew wanted to distinguish between "rocks" in the text, he most likely would have used lithos, which could be used to refer to a large rock, although it, too (like petra), was more commonly used to denote a small stone. There is also a third word that Matthew could have used that always means "small stone" or "pebble": psephos. It is used this way twice in Revelation 2:17, when Jesus says, "To him who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone which no one knows except him who receives it."

What’s in a Name?

5. A simpler line of reasoning is found in the context of the passage. Our Lord says to Peter, "Blessed are you. . . . And so I say to you, you are Peter. . . . I will give to you the keys to the kingdom. . . . Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." Jesus uses the word you seven times in just three verses. It doesn’t follow that Jesus would address so much of this passage to Peter, and then say, "But I will build my Church upon me." The context is clearly one in which Jesus is communicating a unique authority to Peter.

In addition, Jesus is portrayed as the builder of the Church, not the building. He said, "I will build my church." Jesus is "the wise man who built his house upon the rock" (Matt. 7:24) in Matthew’s Gospel. Once again, the interpretation of Jesus building the Church upon himself does not fit the context.

6. The changing of Simon’s name to Peter is also significant and often overlooked. In Scripture, we find that when God revealed a new and radical calling to certain of his people, he sometimes changed their names. In particular, this is true in the calling of the patriarchs. Abram ("exalted father" in Hebrew) was changed to Abraham ("father of the multitudes"); Jacob ("supplanter") was changed to Israel ("one who prevails with God"). In fact, there is an interesting parallel between Abraham and Peter. Isaiah 51:1–2 says:

Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you who seek the Lord; look to the rock from which you were hewn. . . . Look to Abraham your father.
​

Jesus made Peter a true father over the household of faith, just as God made Abraham our true father in the faith (cf. Rom. 4:1–18; Jas. 2:21). It is fitting that Peter’s successors are called "pope" or "papa," as was Abraham (Luke 16:24).

God’s Prime Minister

7. When we understand that Christ is the true son of David who came to restore the prophetic kingdom of David, we understand that in Matthew 16, Christ, like the king of Israel, was establishing a "prime minister" among his ministers, the apostles, in the kingdom. Isaiah 22:20–22 gives insight into the ministry of the "prime minister" in ancient Israel:

In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
​

In Revelation 1:18, Jesus declares, "I have the keys of Death and Hades," then quotes this very text from Isaiah in Revelation 3:7:

And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: "The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens."
​

No Christian would deny that Jesus is the King who possesses the keys. To whom does he give the keys? To Peter!

8. If we examine the text grammatically—"You are Peter, and on this rock"—"this rock" must refer to the closest noun. To say "this rock" refers to Jesus, or to Peter’s declaration of faith, is to completely ignore the structure of the sentence.

As an analogy, consider this sentence: "I have a car and a truck, and it is blue." Which is blue? The truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun it. This would be even clearer if the reference to the car were two sentences earlier, as Peter’s profession is two sentences earlier than the word rock.

If Jesus wanted to distinguish between rocks, he could have said: "You are Peter, but upon this rock I will build my Church." "This rock" would then have clearly referred to something other than Peter.

On Second Thought

9. Jesus does not speak in the third person when referring to Peter as the "rock." James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries claims:

When Christ speaks to Peter, He does so in the second person; that is, direct address. Yet, the term "this rock" is third person (indirect address indicated by the use of taute), making the differentiation between "Peter" and "this rock" complete. . . . He is speaking to Peter, about the "rock." Hence, the text differentiates between Peter and the rock in two ways: the form of the word [petros and petra] and the person of address. (Answers to Catholic Claims, Crowne Publications, p. 105)
​

But because "this rock" is a metaphor for Peter, it is natural to use the third person. Jesus does something similar in Matthew 21:42–44:

Have you never read in the Scriptures: "The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner?" . . . He who falls on this stone (ton lithon touton) will be broken to pieces; but when it falls on any one, it will crush him.
​

"This stone" refers to Jesus, just as "this rock" refers to Peter, but the third person is used in both cases because both the "rock" and the "stone" are metaphors.

10. In 1 Corinthians 3:11, Paul declared, "No other foundation can any one lay except that which has been laid, Jesus Christ." In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Jesus himself is called "the supernatural Rock." But neither of these passages means that Christ was speaking of himself as "the rock" in Matthew 16.

The same metaphor can be used in different places and with different meanings. For example, in Ephesians 2:20 and Revelation 21:14, the apostles are referred to as the foundation of the Church. In Psalm 18:31 and 1 Samuel 2:2, "God alone" is our "rock." Yet in Isaiah 51:1–2, Abraham is called "rock."

God freely chooses to communicate his authority in varying degrees to members of the people of God in order to accomplish his governance and authority on the earth. God’s ministers participate in the prophetic, priestly, and kingly ministry of Christ. Jesus Christ, the rock foundation of our faith, is certainly capable of making Peter the rock and the foundation of our faith in him.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You Can't Get Past this Rock
By Tim Staples

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The spirit compels me.........

 

[chestertonrules]

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.

Jesus spoke Aramaic, not greek.

 

[Rick Otto]

He spoke Greek, Aramaic & Hebrew.
(But not all at the same time)

 

[JacksLadder]

What about this rock....Petra!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsZroyRCQHA

 

[nestoj]

The most important thing to know is Pope != St. Peter, Patriarch of Constantinople != St. Andrew.... Bishops are successors of the Apostles, they aren't The Apostles. Successor doesn't always follow the predecessor and Bishops are unique man, with their own qualities and weaknesses...but they aren't copies of the Apostles...what is spoken to Peter - is spoken to Peter, what is said of John is said of John (not to the Pope and the Patriarch of Antioch, nor of the Patriarch of Jerusalem....).

Edit:
Apostolic Succession is the gift from God, given to the Apostles. By their kindness, it was given to others. Others gave it further, it's not confined to single man - but it is in The Church, given to and for The Church. That's why Orthodox say Apostolic Succession is within entire Church and that falling off from The Church invalidates Apostolic Succession.

I am my father's son, but I'm not my father.


God helps

 

[k2svpete]

Apastolic succession etc is nothing more than a man made concept that bears no resemblance to the early church.

 

[Crankitup]

Originally Posted by Tu Es Petrus

There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).


Peter the Rock


Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was that—aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2—in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.


Look at the scene


Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when "Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi" (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, "You are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).

The significance of the event must have been clear to the other apostles. As devout Jews they knew at once that the location was meant to emphasize the importance of what was being done. None complained of Simon being singled out for this honor; and in the rest of the New Testament he is called by his new name, while James and John remain just James and John, not Boanerges.


Promises to Peter


When he first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)’" (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).

Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.

Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).

Finally, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, "Do you love me?" (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me more than these?" (John 21:15), the word "these" referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives.

Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled.


Who is the rock?


Now take a closer look at the key verse: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18). Disputes about this passage have always been related to the meaning of the term "rock." To whom, or to what, does it refer? Since Simon’s new name of Peter itself means rock, the sentence could be rewritten as: "You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church." The play on words seems obvious, but commentators wishing to avoid what follows from this—namely the establishment of the papacy—have suggested that the word rock could not refer to Peter but must refer to his profession of faith or to Christ.

From the grammatical point of view, the phrase "this rock" must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God") is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.

As an analogy, consider this artificial sentence: "I have a car and a truck, and it is blue." Which is blue? The truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun "it." This is all the more clear if the reference to the car is two sentences earlier, as the reference to Peter’s profession is two sentences earlier than the term rock.


Another alternative


The previous argument also settles the question of whether the word refers to Christ himself, since he is mentioned within the profession of faith. The fact that he is elsewhere, by a different metaphor, called the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4-8) does not disprove that here Peter is the foundation. Christ is naturally the principal and, since he will be returning to heaven, the invisible foundation of the Church that he will establish; but Peter is named by him as the secondary and, because he and his successors will remain on earth, the visible foundation. Peter can be a foundation only because Christ is the cornerstone.

In fact, the New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5-6, Rev. 21:14). One cannot take a single metaphor from a single passage and use it to twist the plain meaning of other passages. Rather, one must respect and harmonize the different passages, for the Church can be described as having different foundations since the word foundation can be used in different senses.


Look at the Aramaic


Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while "rock" is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra?

Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, "You will be called Cephas"). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church."

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of "small stone" and "large rock" in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).

Some of the effect of Christ’s play on words was lost when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church."

Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, "and the Rock was Christ" though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from "Rock . . . rock."

If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew’s Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.

The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy.


source: LINK
​

Whenever I see so many words being used to explain a theological position I become suspect. In many cases it takes so many words to explain a particular viewpoint because the viewpoint is wrong.

If you could try putting forth your position in your own words and within two or three succinct sentences I'll engage with it. Interested?

 

[Doveaman]

I am here wondering what difference Peter being the rock makes to my personal salvation.

Come to think of it, I was saved even before I heard about Peter. I did not even know there was a Peter at the time, so I’m wondering what difference it makes knowing if he was a rock or a pebble.

I really don’t know if he was a rock or a pebble, but what I do know is that he is now a parcel of dust somewhere because the last time I heard about Peter he was dead and buried and his smelly maggot infested carcass was rotting in the grave.

 

[Mikeb85]

I am here wondering what difference Peter being the rock makes to my personal salvation.

...

For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not carnal?
Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one?
I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase.
So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase.
.....................................
Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise.
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their [own] craftiness";
and again, "The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile."
Therefore let no one boast in men. For all things are yours:
whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world or life or death, or things present or things to come--all are yours.
And you [are] Christ's, and Christ [is] God's.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by 1 Corinthians 3

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

....Come to think of it, I was saved even before I heard about Peter.....

No one is saved until they get to heaven. Salvation is a process, not a one-time event.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Doveaman ....Come to think of it, I was saved even before I heard about Peter.....

No one is saved until they get to heaven. Salvation is a process, not a one-time event.

I was surprised with my parents, being RCs at the time I was born, they didn't name me Peter instead of Stephen

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

I was surprised with my parents, being RCs at the time I was born, they didn't name me Peter instead of Stephen

Hahha.

So now that you're EO, did you do the stations of the cross this Friday? I did. Check out my thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7356881/

 

[JacksLadder]

No one is saved until they get to heaven. Salvation is a process, not a one-time event.

Not a process or event. It is just knowing you are a sinner and that Christ died for you. Then being a good tree good fruit will follow.