Peter the Rock / Protestant and Catholic

[Albion]

But that did not arrive 300 years later?

What I said was that it was about that time when the bishops of Rome began to claim universal jurisdiction based upon a certain interpretation of that verse in Matthew.

That being so, it doesn't suggest that it was common knowledge among Christians of the first, second, or third centuries that "Thou are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church" meant that Peter -- and his successor bishops throughout time -- had jurisdiction over the whole church.

And for good measure, we should note also that the Eastern churches have never accepted such an innovation.

 

[klutedavid]

What I said was that it was about that time when the bishops of Rome began to claim universal jurisdiction based upon a certain interpretation of that verse in Matthew.

That being so, it doesn't suggest that it was common knowledge among Christians of the first, second, or third centuries that "Thou are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church" meant that Peter -- and his successor bishops throughout time -- had jurisdiction over the whole church.

And for good measure, we should note also that the Eastern churches have never accepted such an innovation.

Correct, there have always been various church movements, even denominations, that have existed since the churches were first established by the apostles.

For example the Laodicea council was held in 365 AD and had nothing to do with the bishop of Rome.

It took many centuries for the Catholic church to develop that papal power and authority. There were always schisms within the churches and schisms within the Catholic church.

 

[Redwingfan9]

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?

Even if we were to say that Peter is the rock upon which the church will be built, that doesn't justify Popery as Peter is now dead. I take the position that Jesus was talking to all of the apostles, with Peter being one of them. His teaching is that they were the rock upon which the church would be built. History has shown that is true.

 

[Lost4words]

No it hasnt.

 

[Athanasius377]

Can you provide evidence that Peter never went to Rome?

Trying to prove a negative is a fallacy because it requires omniscience. I for one accept that Peter went to Rome primarily because it is an early attested to tradition.

 

[Rubiks]

Can you provide evidence that Peter never went to Rome?

That's not how the burden of proof works.

 

[Lost4words]

That's not how the burden of proof works.

You said he didnt go to Rome. Where is your proof?

 

[Lost4words]

“The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”

"Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome."

Source: Was Peter in Rome?

There is more in the link

 

[Albion]

Even if we were to say that Peter is the rock upon which the church will be built, that doesn't justify Popery as Peter is now dead. I take the position that Jesus was talking to all of the apostles, with Peter being one of them. His teaching is that they were the rock upon which the church would be built. History has shown that is true.

What's more, even if we took the position that Christ was making Peter the head of his church...it doesn't in any way make every other bishop of Rome since then have the same status.

 

[Mountainmike]

You are missing a number of issues

1: Jesus often referred to the OT in order to explain himself. The office of keys is clearly defined in the time of hezekiah as steward , second in command with the authority of the king whilst awAy, with the symbol of " keys upon his shoulder" " what he opens none shall shut"
The keys given to a man, not a confession

2: protestants are clutching at straws. It is not only semantic nonsense , Aramaic does not have tenses, it is also grammatical nonsense. If Jesus were referring to other than peter he would say " you are peter BUT on this rock ( to point elsewhere than peter) " not " you are peter AND on this rock" which clearly refers to the sentence subject Peter.

3 the YOU of verse 18 must be the same as the YOU of 19. It is Basic grammar. The power to bind and loose ( give judgement on interpretation of law) is given to a man, not a confession. Further showing the Protestant version doesn't make sense. And importantly this is the basis on which peter is able to give judgement. Later given to other apostles giving authority to councils.


4 I've tried this : Jesus said " revealed to children , concealed to wise men" read the passage and ask a child. They will say peter.
Protestants are too clever by half, in twisting it beyond recognition.

5: even the geographic location ( by pans temple , on a rock platform in Caesarea Phillips with a river disappearing that the romans considered entry to underworld, makes the context obvious. ( see Steve ray, upon this rock) .

6 : later peter is given the chief pastor role " tend my sheep" entirely consistent with steward.

The Protestant interpretation is wishful thinking, trying to avoid the obvious, The legitimacy of the pope.

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?

 

[dqhall]

In John 21:17 Jesus asked Peter to feed his sheep; to lead the church like a shepherd guides the sheep. Peter was trained by Christ to teach the people. Many others have tried to teach the good news since. They are not Peter.

An edifice built on a good foundation will not collapse. Jesus was counting on Peter to carry God’s message.

 

[Lost4words]

In John 21:17 Jesus asked Peter to feed his sheep; to lead the church like a shepherd guides the sheep. Peter was trained by Christ to teach the people. Many others have tried to teach the good news since. They are not Peter.

An edifice built on a good foundation will not collapse. Jesus was counting on Peter to carry God’s message.

Peter, like all leaders, also had his weaknesses too. But, he was the Rock that Jesus chose to build His church.

 

[Albion]

You are missing a number of issues

1: Jesus often referred to the OT in order to explain himself. The office of keys is clearly defined in the time of hezekiah as steward , second in command with the authority of the king whilst awAy, with the symbol of " keys upon his shoulder" " what he opens none shall shut"
The keys given to a man, not a confession

It's not a good comparison to argue that a political position (in the OT) is the counterpart of a religious one (allegedly in the NT--the Papacy) and that "key" and "keys" are symbolic of the same thing.

You said something about clutching at straws; your thesis here is an example of doing just that.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Get ready to welcome the Catholic bashers!

Read:

Peter the Rock A great article as mentioned in above post.

Quote:

“To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatim from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Isa. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.”

I take offense with your comment about Catholic bashers. I am a Catholic for life, baptized and confirmed, however, I do not agree with all of the traditions in the RCC. So that being said, I voted that Peter is not the first Pope, as the RCC has deemed him, he was the first to call Him Messiah so he earned what is known as the "foundation of the Apostles", the first stone after Jesus Christ of Nazareth who is the Chief Corner Stone of that foundation.
Blessings

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Peter is not the rock. Jesus is the rock of our salvation.

 

[parousia70]

My final question is: What did Jesus actually mean? Was Peter The Rock, or was Jesus himself the foundation of the whole church?

Jesus is the King, and He bestowed upon Peter the position of His first "prime minister" (Not "Successor", as you said) when He called him ROCK.

Jesus clearly gave St. Peter "the keys of the kingdom" (Mt 16:18-19) and He didn't invent the notion of "giving the Keys of the kingdom" right there on the spot... it is rooted in the Old testament practice of what the King of Israel Bestowed upon His prime Minister.

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

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

The governmental structure of the New Israel is related to the Divine and historic government that existed before it--in other words, it is derived from early times. Bishops/shepherds were common names given to Israel's tribal leadership. So also "elder" was a common office of leadership over Israel. There were the kings of the monarchy, and there were prime ministers in Israel, second in command only to the reigning monarch. In a word, Israel always had a divinely instituted government, and this government was re-constututed under the New Covenant King in the first century. In the granting of the "Keys" to Peter (Matt 16:18-19/Isa 22:15-25), the appointment of the new 12 patriarchs (Matt 19:28; 10:1-4; Rev 21:12-14), and the ordination of bishops/elders and deacons, Jesus re-created Israel under the terms and conditions of the New Covenant order. Christ re-instituted the familiar leadership offices from Israel's history, and established the Twelve who expanded the Bishopric/Episcopate for New Israel. They went about ordaining men to offices in every city by the laying on of hands, and commissioned those appointees to continue this same practice also by the laying on of hands (a cardinal NT doctrine according to Hebrews 6:1-2). The establishment of the authorized bishopric can be traced throughout the New Testament scriptures, and is especially highlighted in Acts and the letters to the Bishops Titus and Timothy. The authorized government of New Israel is evidenced in Holy Scripture, and was maintained from Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus and those that followed.

With respect, no one doubted the authority of Peter and his successors until after the 1500s. The early Christians believed it and taught it. As they all understood, Jesus gave His own keys of the Kingdom to Peter (Mt 16:18-19), and the power this conferred upon Peter is detailed at Isaiah 22:15-24, when the O.T. kings gave the keys to their prime ministers.

 

[Semper-Fi]

Gods true church would not have
converted others by the sword.

Peter is a stone,
Christ is The Rock.

 

[Guojing]

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?

If you really read Acts of the Apostles on your own, you will realize a few things

The importance of Peter was high at the start but faded off by the time mid Acts came.

James, the brother of Jesus, basically became the boss of the Jerusalem HQ, even though Peter was designated by Jesus to be the head of the church.

So this casts serious doubts to Peter being the foundation of the whole church.

 

[PaulCyp1]

The plainly stated will of Jesus Christ concerning His followers was and still is "that they all may be ONE, even as I and my heavenly Father are ONE". Why was unity so essential to Jesus? Because truth cannot conflict with truth, and therefore conflicting beliefs necessarily mean false beliefs. If two churches have conflicting beliefs, at least one of them is teaching falsely. Jesus founded ONE Church, said it was to remain ONE, and promised that ONE Church "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me". Which is why that ONE Church remains ONE in belief, ONE in teaching, ONE in worship, ONE in biblical understanding throughout the world after 2,000 years, while unauthorized manmade denominational churches that have defected from God's Church have fragmented into thousands of unauthorized conflicting manmade denominations in just a few hundred years.

 

[Zachm531]

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?

For some reason, catholics believe that Peter founded catholicism... Peter was a jewish believer of Jesus. That makes him a messianic jew. Peter is the rock, to say otherwise is to disagree with Jesus. Peters church never taught idol/statue worship, never taught the mary was an intercessor, never taught custom before scripture/gospel( Jesus spent most of his ministry rebuking the pharisees for this), peter never taught that himself, any apostle/disciple, priest or any other man was an intercessor between man and God, he never taught that his followers could forgive sin etc... Even if catholicism is the church that Peter started(which there is no evidence for, if anything his ministry was very similar to a scripture heavy, messianic jewish congregation) today’s catholic church doctrine is WAY off. Catholics CAN be saved, but, their doctrine is off for sure and its very clear to anyone who reads the scriptures.