Protestant Scholars agree - Peter is the Rock in Matthew 16:18

[hoser]

I never had problem of Peter being the Rock of the Church but I disagree that Peter was the Pope. You didn't read the whole article why they were explaining why Peter was not Pope. You can keep supporting your loyalty to your denomination while I support the truth which is Christ (not denomination).

My Church is NOT a denomination. In protestant land I realize that everyone considers their church to be one denomination of many, the Catholic Church is not one of them. They are The Church, she is NOT one of many, she is ONE and universal.

I didn't read what whole article?

And the first Pope? Maybe the exact language wasn't used 2000 years ago, but he was certainly know to be the Bishop of Rome.

You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth." Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius' Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178).

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).

"This man [Simon Magus], after he had been cast out by the Apostles, came to Rome...Peter and Paul, a noble pair, chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right...For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven..." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures ,6:14-15 (c. A.D. 350).

"I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul...My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross." Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15 (A.D. 377).

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

"After such things as these, moreover, they still dare--a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics--to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access." Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).

”The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle." Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342).

"Bishop Gaudentius said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision full of sincere charity which thou hast pronounced, that if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter in defense, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this." Council of Sardica, Canon IV (A.D. 343-344).

"You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter, sat…in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one." Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 2:2-3 (c. A.D. 367).

"For the good of unity Blessed Peter deserved to be preferred before the rest, and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, that he might communicate them to the rest." Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 7:3 (c.A.D. 367).

"…I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul…The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold…My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.” Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15:1-2 (A.D. 375).

"Your grace must be besought not to permit any disturbance of the Roman Church, the head of the whole Roman World and of the most holy faith of the Apostles, for from thence flow out to all (churches) the bonds of sacred communion." Ambrose, To Emperor Gratian, Epistle 11:4 (A.D. 381).

"Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail" Augustine, Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 (A.D. 393).

"I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by...and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate." Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani, 5 (A.D. 395).

"The rising pestilence was first cut short by Rome, the see of Peter, which having become the head to the world of the pastoral office, holds by religion whatever it holds not by arms." Prosper of Aquitaine, Song on the Enemies of Grace, 1 (A.D. 429).

"Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid...Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter." Pope Stephen I [regn. A.D. 254-257], Firmilian to Cyprian, Epistle 74/75:17 (A.D. 256).

 

[hoser]

The question of the rock.

Mt 16:18
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
KJV

Consider what was said before Jesus said that he would build his church on “this rock”.

Uh, yeah, consider that Peter means "Rock". In Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha. So what Jesus said to Simon is correctly translated to this, ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’

Mt 16:17

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

The subject in verse 17 is how Peter received the understanding of who Jesus was. Flesh and blood did not reveal it, or tell it to Peter. We would say “a person did not tell (reveal) this to you. Jesus said “my Father which is in heaven told (revealed) this to you..

When a person is told something (has something revealed to them) by the Father, the revealing is accomplished by the Holy Spirit. This is called revelation knowledge. It is called revelation knowledge because it is knowledge revealed by the Holy Spirit.

The rock Jesus referred to when He said “ upon this rock I will build my church” was/is the “rock” of “knowledge revealed from the Father”.

Revelation knowledge is a “rock” that is available to anyone who seeks it.

Verse 17 is not unimportant as no verse in the Bible is unimportant. But considering everything else, Peter meaning rock, Peter given the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, Peter being listed first whenever the list of Apostles are written, Peter being told by Jesus to feed his sheep, etc. etc. etc... Your argument is weak. Sorry, but Jesus renamed Simon to Peter (rock) for a reason. It wasn't just for the fun of it.

 

[johnd]

The Bible and Peter himself record that the Rock is Christ;

1 PETER 2:3 now that you have tasted that the Lord is good.
4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” 7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, “The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone,” 8 and, “A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.” They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

Jesus said:

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

He was referring to the cornerstone / capstone or in other words the foundation.

1 Corinthians 3:10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Anything man has to say on a subject does not matter at all when it opposes what God has to say about it. Don't allow the writings of men nor their sayings lead you astray from what the Lord God Almighty said in his Word the Bible.

 

[hoser]

BTW, I don't read the Good News Bible version as my preference for best version is the RSV-CE second edition, but nonetheless, Matthew 16:18 reads like this in the GNB:

Matthew 16:18 And so I tell you, Peter: you are a rock, and on this rock foundation I will build my church, and not even death will ever be able to overcome it.

For those of you who are wondering, this is NOT a Catholic Bible. But this translation is the best one I have actually seen, because it accurately describes what Jesus is trying to say here. This eliminates any confusion.

 

[hoser]

The Bible and Peter himself record that the Rock is Christ;

1 PETER 2:3 now that you have tasted that the Lord is good.
4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” 7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, “The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone,” 8 and, “A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.” They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

Jesus said:

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

He was referring to the cornerstone / capstone or in other words the foundation.

1 Corinthians 3:10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Anything man has to say on a subject does not matter at all when it opposes what God has to say about it. Don't allow the writings of men nor their sayings lead you astray from what the Lord God Almighty said in his Word the Bible.

I agree with you 100%! Jesus Christ IS the foundation. No doubt about it. In fact, no one denies that Jesus is the foundation or cornerstone of His Church. And noone has said otherwise. Good job mate.

 

[revduane]

Well, "all" of the others then are wrong, just like you are. To say that Matthew 16:18 means anything else is a slap in the face to the context of the verse.

I suggest you read "Upon this Rock" by Steve Ray. You might receive some insight on the issue.

And

If you want to see Scripture misinterpretated, then ask a Scholar, or a Theologian. This doesn't mean that they are always wrong, like you so elequently charge others to be, that has shown again and again that Peter is not the rock, that Jesus was going to build His Church on.

It is interesting that a doctrine, that is supposedly infallible, hangs by threads, that if one thing is admitedly proven wrong, the whole doctrine itself would start to unravel. So some of the people that defend this doctrine with incredible zeal, like yourself hoser, has to be brutal, and blunt, and will constantly insult others that they believe to be wrong about all Christian history, and Scripture that is revealed by the Holy Spirit Himself.

Why is that?

The contrversy at this moment is whether Peter or Jesus is the ROCK that the Church is built upon.
Read 1Peter 2:3-10.

In verse 8 of this Scripture the phrase ROCK of offence, refers to Jesus alone, otherwise Peter would be preaching of himself, just as the C.C. preaches Peter, instead of Jesus. Notice the word used in reference to Jesus:

ROCK of offence: Strongs:4073. petra, pet'-ra; fem. Of the same as G4074; a (mass of) rock (lit. or fig.):---Rock.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Christ is the Invisible Head of the Church, Whom in His insightfulness to humanity's need for a leader, He handed the task to Peter.
AKA Simon of Jonah.

Christ is also the One Who forgives sins, but He hands the task over to His men.

Irenaeus gives a list of men who stood in Peter's place.
Evidently meaningful that Peter should be replaced with a succession.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272a.htm

St. Irenaeus, writing between 175 and 190, not many years after his Roman sojourn, enumerates the series from Peter to Eleutherius (Adv. Haer. 3:3:3; Eusebius, "Hist. eccl." 5:6) . His object, as we have already seen, was to establish the orthodoxy of the traditional doctrine, as opposed to heretical novelties, by showing that the bishop was the natural inheritor of the Apostolic teaching. He gives us the names alone, not the length of the various episcopates. This need is supplied by other witnesses. Most important evidence is furnished by the document entitled the " Liberian Catalogue " -- so called from the Pope whose name ends the list. The collection of tracts of which this forms a part was edited (apparently by one Furius Dionysius Philocalus) in 354. The catalogue consists of a list of the Roman bishops from Peter to Liberius, with the length of their respective episcopates, the consular dates, the name of the reigning emperor, and in many cases other details. There is the strongest ground for believing that the earlier part of the catalogue, as far as Pontian (230-35), is the work of Hippolytus of Portus. It is manifest that up to this point the fourth century compiler was making use of a different authority from that which he employs for the subsequent popes: and there is evidence rendering it almost certain that Hippolytus's work "Chronica" contained such a list. The reign of Pontian, moreover, would be the point at which that list would have stopped: for Hippolytus and he were condemned to servitude in the Sardinian mines -- a fact which the chronographer makes mention when speaking of Pontian's episcopate. Lightfoot has argued that this list originally contained nothing but the names of the bishops and the duration of their episcopates, the remaining notes being additions by a later hand. The list of popes is identical with that of Irenaeus, save that Anacletus is doubled into Cletus and Anacletus, while Clement appears before, instead of after, these two names. The order of Popes Pius and Anicetus has also been interchanged. There is every reason to regard; these differences as due to the errors of copyists. Another witness is Eusebius. The names and episcopal years of the bishops can be gathered alike from his "History" and his "Chronicle". The notices in the two works; can be shown to be in agreement, notwithstanding certain corruptions in many texts of the "Chronicle". This Eastern list in the hands of Eusebius is seen to have been identical with the Western list of Hippolytus, except that in the East the name of Linus's successor seems to have been given as Anencletus, in the original Western list as Cletus. The two authorities presuppose the following list: (1) Peter, xxv; (2) Linus, xii; (3) Anencletus [Cletus], xii; (4) Clement, ix; (5) Evarestus, viii; (6) Alexander, x; (7) Sixtus, x; (8) Telesophorus, xi; (9) Hyginus, iv; (10) Pius, xv; (11) Anicetus, xi;, (12) Soter, viii; (13) Eleutherius, xv; (14) Victor, x; (15) Zephyrinus, xviii; (16) Callistus, v; (17) Urban, viii; (18) Pontian, v (Harnack, "Chronologie", I, 152).

 

[johnd]

BTW, I don't read the Good News Bible version as my preference for best version is the RSV-CE second edition, but nonetheless, Matthew 16:18 reads like this in the GNB:

Matthew 16:18 And so I tell you, Peter: you are a rock, and on this rock foundation I will build my church, and not even death will ever be able to overcome it.

For those of you who are wondering, this is NOT a Catholic Bible. But this translation is the best one I have actually seen, because it accurately describes what Jesus is trying to say here. This eliminates any confusion.

Except in the original Greek the word petros was applied to Peter ( small rock) and the word Petra (ledge or rock outcropping) was applied to the foundation of the Church Jesus would build and 1 Corinthians 3:11 declares that foundation is Christ.

Strong's # 4073 petra

1) a rock, cliff or ledge
1a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground
1b) a rock, a large stone
1c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul

Strong's # 4074 Petros

Peter = “a rock or a stone”
1) one of the twelve disciples of Jesus

In another thread you mentioned something along the lines of "what's the big deal about something being in the Bible?"

The big deal is that if it is in the Bible it is true. It is no less than God's account of things...

2 Peter 1:20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

And by them we are to:

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test everything. Hold on to the good.

1 John 4:1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

The Bereans were commended for checking out what the Apostle Paul taught to see if it was in accord with scripture:

Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

So don't sluff off the importance of scriprture, nor detract from it to suit a human doctrine or dogma. Those who pooh pooh the importance of scripture have something to hide: namely how the Bible disproves what they want to believe is true.

Be extremely careful about this.

The cults (none are named here) are on the same path only further along it. The same is true with the false religionists and even the skeptics and atheists (they are just further down the path than the aforementioned). I am not naming names here nor implying anything other than there is a common denominator here (individually and corporately) and that is the distancing of one's self from the Bible truth.

John 17:17 Sanctify them by the truth; your word IS truth.

 

[hoser]

If you want to see Scripture misinterpretated, then ask a Scholar, or a Theologian. This doesn't mean that they are always wrong, like you so elequently charge others to be, that has shown again and again that Peter is not the rock, that Jesus was going to build His Church on.

So what make a scholar or a theologian? So do all "scholars or theologians" agree on every matter? Hmmmm??? Many "scholars or theologians" don't agree with your assumption of Peter not being the rock in Matthew 16:18.

It is interesting that a doctrine, that is supposedly infallible, hangs by threads, that if one thing is admitedly proven wrong, the whole doctrine itself would start to unravel. So some of the people that defend this doctrine with incredible zeal, like yourself hoser, has to be brutal, and blunt, and will constantly insult others that they believe to be wrong about all Christian history, and Scripture that is revealed by the Holy Spirit Himself.

Why is that?

The contrversy at this moment is whether Peter or Jesus is the ROCK that the Church is built upon.
Read 1Peter 2:3-10.

In verse 8 of this Scripture the phrase ROCK of offence, refers to Jesus alone, otherwise Peter would be preaching of himself, just as the C.C. preaches Peter, instead of Jesus. Notice the word used in reference to Jesus:

ROCK of offence: Strongs:4073. petra, pet'-ra; fem. Of the same as G4074; a (mass of) rock (lit. or fig.):---Rock.[/quote]

Yawn, Like I said some time ago, it make no difference whether or not you are a reverend or your own pope. You can be wrong and are.

Like I said, no one ever denies Jesus is the Rock. No one. So don't claim so. But this in NO way says that Jesus cannot give someone (Peter) the name Peter which means rock to be the leader of His Church. See, you refuse to see it this way. Open your eyes.

 

[revduane]

The Bible and Peter himself record that the Rock is Christ;

1 PETER 2:3 now that you have tasted that the Lord is good.
4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” 7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, “The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone,” 8 and, “A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.” They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

Jesus said:

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

He was referring to the cornerstone / capstone or in other words the foundation.

1 Corinthians 3:10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Anything man has to say on a subject does not matter at all when it opposes what God has to say about it. Don't allow the writings of men nor their sayings lead you astray from what the Lord God Almighty said in his Word the Bible.

Amen. I was also working from this Scripture a few posts down. But it will be dismissed, as misinterpretation. For if Peter is the ROCK. Then Jesus would have said you are Peter, and you are the Rock that I will build my Church upon, for you are infallible, and the true leader of the Church.

John 5:39-43....Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they that testify of me. 40..And ye will not come to me, that ye may have life. 41..I receive not honor from men. 42..But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. 43..I AM COME IN MY FATHER'S NAME, AND YE RECEIVE ME NOT: IF ANOTHER SHALL COME IN HIS OWN NAME, HIM YE WILL RECEIVE.

How tragic for God this is.

Rev.

 

[Trento]

Rome is the "only" Church of the Ancient Churches who define Peter as the Rock in Matthew 16:18.

"All" of the others agree that the faith that Peter showed is the Rock spoken of.

Forgive me...

Well let's see. Here is what the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Jerusalem,and Constantinople say.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem Patriarch (363 A.D.):

"Our Lord Jesus Christ then become man, but by the many He was not known. But wishing to teach that which was not known, having assembled His disciples, He asked, 'Who do you say that I the Son of man am?' ...And all being silent, for it was beyond man to know, Peter, the Foremost of the Apostles, the Chief Herald of the Church, not using language of his own finding, but having his mind enlightened by the Father, says unto Him, 'Thou art the Christ,' and not simply that, but, 'the Son of the living God.' And a blessing follows the speech. ....' ....and upon this Rock I will found my Church ...' " (Cyril, Catech, xi. n. 3).

St. Cyril of Alexandria Patriarch(c. 424): He suffers him no longer to be called Simon, exercising authority and rule over him already having become His own. By a title suitable to the thing, He changed his name into Peter, from the word 'petra' (rock); for on him He was afterwards to found His Church. (Cyril, T. iv. Comm. in Joan., p. 131)



St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387):

Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church, the Friend of Christ, who received a revelation, not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, 'Blessed art thou, &c.' This very Peter and when I name Peter I name that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, First of the disciples, the First called, and the First who obeyed " (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom)

 

[hoser]

Except in the original Greek the word petros was applied to Peter ( small rock) and the word Petra (ledge or rock outcropping) was applied to the foundation of the Church Jesus would build and 1 Corinthians 3:11 declares that foundation is Christ.

I am quoting myself here. Stuff I write in the past I save for events like this. So here goes...

"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."The Koine Greek word for stone is lithos, so if Jesus had meant Peter is the stone like you say, lithos is the term Jesus would have used. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).

Jesus renamed Simon into the Greek word “Petros” with is also the Aramaic word “Kepha” or “Cephas” in our English Bibles, which means Rock. Remember, Jesus and everyone in the time of Jesus spoke Aramaic."

...
So don't sluff off the importance of scriprture, nor detract from it to suit a human doctrine or dogma. Those who pooh pooh the importance of scripture have something to hide: namely how the Bible disproves what they want to believe is true.

Be extremely careful about this.

The cults (none are named here) are on the same path only further along it. The same is true with the false religionists and even the skeptics and atheists (they are just further down the path than the aforementioned). I am not naming names here nor implying anything other than there is a common denominator here (individually and corporately) and that is the distancing of one's self from the Bible truth.

John 17:17 Sanctify them by the truth; your word IS truth.

I DO NOT, nor have I ever said to "sluff off the importance of scriprture". You obviously misunderstood what I said. What I said is scripture is not the be all end all of truth. I NEVER said scripture isn't true in any way. Please think about things before you respond.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Except in the original Greek the word petros

No, the original was Aramaic.
Matthew later tried to convert the Gospel to Greek.

Which is where he had a difficult task. Since petra is the proper word for ROCK, but Peter is masculine. SO he used petros [an existing word altho it changes the meaning] but which is the masculine.

He had preached Peter, so he was certain that Tradition by oral teaching would suffice.

Aramaic was First!

 

[hoser]

Amen. I was also working from this Scripture a few posts down. But it will be dismissed, as misinterpretation. For if Peter is the ROCK. Then Jesus would have said you are Peter, and you are the Rock that I will build my Church upon, for you are infallible, and the true leader of the Church.

John 5:39-43....Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they that testify of me. 40..And ye will not come to me, that ye may have life. 41..I receive not honor from men. 42..But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. 43..I AM COME IN MY FATHER'S NAME, AND YE RECEIVE ME NOT: IF ANOTHER SHALL COME IN HIS OWN NAME, HIM YE WILL RECEIVE.

How tragic for God this is.

Rev.

I can play that same game as you. If Jesus at ANY point meant for the Eucharist to be symbolic and not literal, He would have said so. In John 6, NOPE. In any of the other Gospels, NOPE. In 1 Corinthians 10, NOPE. And so on and so on....

 

[revduane]

So what make a scholar or a theologian? So do all "scholars or theologians" agree on every matter? Hmmmm??? Many "scholars or theologians" don't agree with your assumption of Peter not being the rock in Matthew 16:18.

It is interesting that a doctrine, that is supposedly infallible, hangs by threads, that if one thing is admitedly proven wrong, the whole doctrine itself would start to unravel. So some of the people that defend this doctrine with incredible zeal, like yourself hoser, has to be brutal, and blunt, and will constantly insult others that they believe to be wrong about all Christian history, and Scripture that is revealed by the Holy Spirit Himself.

Why is that?

The contrversy at this moment is whether Peter or Jesus is the ROCK that the Church is built upon.
Read 1Peter 2:3-10.

In verse 8 of this Scripture the phrase ROCK of offence, refers to Jesus alone, otherwise Peter would be preaching of himself, just as the C.C. preaches Peter, instead of Jesus. Notice the word used in reference to Jesus:

ROCK of offence: Strongs:4073. petra, pet'-ra; fem. Of the same as G4074; a (mass of) rock (lit. or fig.):---Rock.

Yawn, Like I said some time ago, it make no difference whether or not you are a reverend or your own pope. You can be wrong and are.

Like I said, no one ever denies Jesus is the Rock. No one. So don't claim so. But this in NO way says that Jesus cannot give someone (Peter) the name Peter which means rock to be the leader of His Church. See, you refuse to see it this way. Open your eyes.[/quote]


Is this the best you can do? You can cut me or anyone else to the quick. This reveals true motivation, of why a subject is argued, instead of being discussed, it is simple egotism. I recognize it, because I was guilty of it some years ago. Your original post must have been pasted.

Whenever I see the use of the expression, HMMMMMM.

I always reminds me of how Satan accuses God to us. Or how he accuses a fellow believer to us, with something like: Making reference to the title Reverend, like I didn't attend Bible School, or that the title was self appointed.

 

[Bulldog]

Barnes states that "the whole meaning of the passage is this: I will make you the honored instrument of making known my gospel first to Jews and Gentiles and will make you a firm and distinguished preacher in building my church." [Barnes' Notes on Matthew, p. 170.]

You should give some bigger context when quoting Barnes.

And upon this rock ... - This passage has given rise to many different interpretations. Some have supposed that the word "rock" refers to Peter’s confession, and that Jesus meant to say, upon this rock, this truth that thou hast confessed, that I am the Messiah and upon confessions of this from all believers, I will build my church. Confessions like this shall be the test of piety, and in such confessions shall my church stand amid the flames of persecution, the fury of the gates of hell. Others have thought that Jesus referred to himself. Christ is called a rock, Isa_28:16; 1Pe_2:8. And it has been thought that he turned from Peter to himself, and said, "Upon this rock, this truth that I am the Messiah - upon myself as the Messiah, I will build my church." Both these interpretations, though plausible, seem forced upon the passage to avoid the main difficulty in it. Another interpretation is, that the word "rock" refers to Peter himself.

This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the Church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other interpretation would have been sought for. "Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm, and suitable for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it. Thou shalt be highly honored; thou shalt be first in making known the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles." This was accomplished. See Acts 2:14-36, where he first preached to the Jews, and Acts 10, where he preached the gospel to Cornelius and his neighbors, who were Gentiles. Peter had thus the honor of laying the foundation of the church among the Jews and Gentiles; and this is the plain meaning of this passage. See also Gal_2:9. But Christ did not mean, as the Roman Catholics say he did, to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say that he was the only one upon whom he would rear his church. See Acts 15, where the advice of James, and not that of Peter, was followed. See also Gal_2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed - a thing which could not have happened if Christ (as the Roman Catholics say) meant that Peter was absolute and infallible. More than all, it is not said here, or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter would have infallible successors who would be the vicegerents of Christ and the head of the church. The whole meaning of the passage is this: "I will make you the honored instrument of making known my gospel first to Jews and Gentiles, and I will make you a firm and distinguished preacher in building my church." (Barnes on Matthew 16:18; emphasis mine)



​

 

[mark75]

I wanted to throw my hat into the ring as well on this one. I have always held the view that although in this passage Jesus was giving Simon bar-Jonah the new name of Petros, meaning rock, the actual "rock" that Jesus was to build the church on is the confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. History then confirms this interpretation because that is exactly what the church has been built on: The true church is built on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, not Peter. There is not any historical evidence of Peter being the foundation of the Church, which incidentally is also referred to by Paul in I Cor. 12 as the body of Christ, not of Peter. Finally, the grammar testifies to this interpretation, because, although this is a play on words, there is no Greek idiom known in which a word was the antecedent of another word of a different gender...if that makes sense. Just the results of my studies.

Mark

 

[revduane]

BTW, I don't read the Good News Bible version as my preference for best version is the RSV-CE second edition, but nonetheless, Matthew 16:18 reads like this in the GNB:

Matthew 16:18 And so I tell you, Peter: you are a rock, and on this rock foundation I will build my church, and not even death will ever be able to overcome it.

For those of you who are wondering, this is NOT a Catholic Bible. But this translation is the best one I have actually seen, because it accurately describes what Jesus is trying to say here. This eliminates any confusion.

Actually. To you it is the best version, because it seemingly backs up your O.P.

If it didn't have the one word in it. (Foundation) Then it would be dismissed as a reprobate version.

There are some things about C.C. Denomination, that I agree with. I don't put all of my eggs into one basket, for the simple fact, that I will never arrive to the total understanding of His Word, and I learn something new everyday. We should all change in some way everyday, because God will always reveal something new, if you will listen to His voice.

One question though.

Why is it that you have no use for protestantism, and they are always wrong in their interpretation of God's Word. Yet. These Scholars seem to back up what the C.C. believes about Peter, and now you have a use for protestants after all. That is double mindedness, in its pure form.

 

[lmnop9876]

the rock is both St. Peter and his faith. this in no way means that St. Peter passed this on to the bishops of old Rome. what is a rock? what is a foundation? it is that which the Church is built on. once the rock is laid, why lay it again, and again, and again, and again, ad infinitum?
btw, the Fathers universally (see the list posted above of quotes about St. Peter) of St. Peter & St. Paul as the founders and organizers of the Church of Rome. what is likely is that St. Peter was the Apostolic Bishop of Antioch for most of his life. when St. Paul was imprisoned in Rome, St. Peter came as a missionary to the churches there, and, with St. Paul, ordained St. Linus as a bishop of the Church in Rome. St. Peter was shortly thereafter martyred in Rome, as was St. Paul. the foundation of the holy Apostles and Prophets having been laid, St. Peter being the foremost and first of these Apostles, and Christ Jesus Himself being the chief corner-stone and Head of the Church, there was no need to lay any other foundation.

 

[mark75]

the rock is both St. Peter and his faith. this in no way means that St. Peter passed this on to the bishops of old Rome. what is a rock? what is a foundation? it is that which the Church is built on. once the rock is laid, why lay it again, and again, and again, and again, ad infinitum?
btw, the Fathers universally (see the list posted above of quotes about St. Peter) of St. Peter & St. Paul as the founders and organizers of the Church of Rome. what is likely is that St. Peter was the Apostolic Bishop of Antioch for most of his life. when St. Paul was imprisoned in Rome, St. Peter came as a missionary to the churches there, and, with St. Paul, ordained St. Linus as a bishop of the Church in Rome. St. Peter was shortly thereafter martyred in Rome, as was St. Paul. the foundation of the holy Apostles and Prophets having been laid, St. Peter being the foremost and first of these Apostles, and Christ Jesus Himself being the chief corner-stone and Head of the Church, there was no need to lay any other foundation.

I have to again state that the only individual who could qualify as the "rock" on which the Church is founded is Jesus Himself. The rock on which any building is built is its bedrock. And Peter's confession stated that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah), the Son of God. If you take this truth from the Church, then there is no Church. You can remove any of the others from the history of the Church, and God can raise up others to do their work, but if you remove Jesus, the Church falls. That's why there is a difference in the two uses of the root word "petros", and Jesus is in no way designating any human being as the foundation upon which His Church would be built. One has to ask the question, "If Peter is also the foundation of the Church, how was he shown to be the foundation of the Church in history?" Being the bishop or pastor of the church in Rome did not make anyone anything other than the bishop or pastor of the church in Rome. There was no special relevance to that church. In fact, in the letters to the seven churches in John's revelation, the church in Rome is not even mentioned. We must be careful with what we read into the scriptures and make sure our assumptions are stable on all sides: linguistically, historically, scripturally, theologically, etc.