Thou art Peter...

[Philip]

Where did Jesus call Peter, rock, or where did Jesus rename Peter, rock? I have never seen any scripture that supports this view.

Are you suggesting that Simon was not renamed Peter? What about

Luke 6:13-16 (KJV)
13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; 14 Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, 15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes, 16 And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.​

Looks like Scriptures state clearly that Christ renamed Simon Peter (Cephas -- Rock).

There is no evidence that Peter was even in Rome and you simply cannot find anything that says Jesus called Peter, rock. I have heard this stated often, but have never found any scriptural authority to support this opinion.

None? Consider:

1 Peter 5:13 (KJV)
The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.​

Peter writes from Babylon, the NT codeword for Rome.

 

[Serapha]

But Jesus renamed Simon to Rock (Peter) not satan. Take the satan statement in context of the man, not the office of "rock". Popes are still men and therefore sinners, but the office is always Holy.

Hi there!



The "office" was holy when Christ was in it... when a substitute sits on th throne instead of Christ, the position is no longer holy, but man-made.


That would be taking "it" in context.


~malaka~

 

[geocajun]

The "office" was holy when Christ was in it... when a substitute sits on th throne instead of Christ, the position is no longer holy, but man-made.

Really? what makes a person think that the chair is no longer Holy when a vicar is in it?
Would you say that was true of Moses as well?

Matthew 23:2-3 "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example."

 

[Serapha]

Really? what makes a person think that the chair is no longer Holy when a vicar is in it?
Would you say that was true of Moses as well?

Matthew 23:2-3 "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example."

I do believe Christ answered that question for you...



"but do not follow their example".


From your statement, I may only assume that you don't actually believe that Christ brought a new gospel, but that we must still be living under the law?????


Now... back to the issue.... no .... the vicar has no authority to BE Christ to this world, and there is only one who is "holy", and it is God... the vicar is a man.. he is not God.


~malaka~

 

[geocajun]

I do believe Christ answered that question for you...
"but do not follow their example".

apparently you missed the part where Jesus (God) told them they MUST do what they say BECAUSE they sat on the Chair of Moses

From your statement, I may only assume that you don't actually believe that Christ brought a new gospel, but that we must still be living under the law?????

you assume to much. where did I mention a law?

Now... back to the issue.... no .... the vicar has no authority to BE Christ to this world, and there is only one who is "holy", and it is God... the vicar is a man.. he is not God.

what do you think a vicar is exactly?

 

[Y’VA–REKH’KHA ADONAI]

But Jesus renamed Simon to Rock (Peter) not satan.

How do you rename someone to an in animate object? That is not the way the Lord works. If you understand anything about the names in the Bible you will see what I mean.



Simon is just the anglicized version of Simeon, the son of Leah and Jacob. When Leah bore him she said:

"For the Lord has heard that I was hated and has given me this son."


Jesus told his disciples that if the world hated him, they too would be hated. ( John 15:18)



Now when you put those two together you get a deeper meaning, if you are open to understanding.



Let's have Peter himself clarify it:

1 Peter 2
1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, all evil speakings,
2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

Jesus is the cornerstone, laid in Zion, Jerusalem, there in God's HolyMountain by the Lord himself. This is the Temple of the Lord, as Jesus said himself

"Destroy this temple and I will raise it up in three days"

The temple of the Lord is where His spirit dwells, a full temple, the " Ecclesia" (called out ones) are all who believe on him and they are the living stones that build up the spiritual house of the Lord. Peter was the very first of those stones because through the grace of God it was revealed to him who Jesus truly was and he became the first of many, many stones that the Lord has called and is building his HolyTemple with.




Here's a little lesson in GREEK to help define this more:



Strong's 4073 is the word "petra" ( n) which means rock, bedrock,, rocky crag, or other large rock formations, in contrast to individual stones, with a focus that this is a suitable , solid foundation.



4074 is the word Petros, n, pn ( notice it is capitalized) it means: Peter; this has the designative meaning "rock" or "individual stone", "rock, stone". Translated as Peter 157 times.



So as you can see he is not the foundation stone for that is the Lord himself, but Peter is the first stone of the Lords spiritual temple, in that he was only the first to have the Lord reveal to him who he was, otherwise as he said 10 years later to the gentiles he was sent to see and invite into this spiritual temple when Cornelius prostrated himself before Peter he quickly admonished him strongly grabbing him and hauling him up and rebuked him with :



" STAND UP! I myself am also a man" ~ Acts of the Apostles 10:26



So here you have the words of the one that is being hailed as the first Pope explicitly telling others not to bow down before him or pay any reverence but yet the popes welcome this.



If Peter was the leader then why is James the head of the Jerusalem church?

Luke 6:13-16 (KJV)
13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; 14 Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, 15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes, 16 And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

Luke was getting his information second hand that is why he wrote it that way, just to define for Theophilos whom he was speaking of.

 

[Philip]

Luke was getting his information second hand that is why he wrote it that way, just to define for Theophilos whom he was speaking of.

Luke was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Notice that Mark agrees with Luke:

Mark 3:14-16 (NKJV)
14Then He appointed twelve, that they might be with Him and that He might send them out to preach, 15and to have power to heal sicknesses and to cast out demons: 16Simon, to whom He gave the name Peter; ​

Guess what. John agrees too:

John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas" (which is translated, A Stone).​

Three of the four Gospels explicitly state that Christ renamed Simon.

Here's a little lesson in GREEK to help define this more:

Strong's 4073 is the word "petra" ( n) which means rock, bedrock,, rocky crag, or other large rock formations, in contrast to individual stones, with a focus that this is a suitable , solid foundation.

4074 is the word Petros, n, pn ( notice it is capitalized) it means: Peter; this has the designative meaning "rock" or "individual stone", "rock, stone". Translated as Peter 157 times.

Couple problems with this: First, Petros is capitalized when transliterated into English. The original Greek had no capitals. Second, Christ used the Aramaic word Cephas. The distiction between Petros and petra is artificial. Petra could not be used as Peter's name since male names in Greek should not end in an 'a'. Finally, Strong's definition is not entirely accurate. Look up the word lithos and compare it with petra.

 

[Y’VA–REKH’KHA ADONAI]

So are you refuting what Peter wrote in 1Peter 2?

Guess what. John agrees too:


John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas" (which is translated, A Stone).

Why so snotty? We can't discuss this as mature adults?



My translation says practically the same thing:

40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Now this is the very beginning of his ministry, the John referred to is the son of Zacharias, the priest, the one called the immerser, he too had his own followers. Andrew goes and tells his brother Simeon that the Messiah promised has been found. He then brings Simeon to Jesus and when Jesus sees him he makes a prophecy, not a renaming, and he tells him:



you shall be called (Cephas which is by interpretation ) a stone.



"You shall be called a stone". Not "your new name is stone". But "called a stone", he was predicting the time to come later on when the Lord revealed to Simeon who Jesus truly was. He ( Jesus ) tells Simeon this:



"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."



He specifically called him Simon son of Jonah, still reiterating that this is still his name.



This coincides perfectly with what Simeon says himself in 1Peter2:



Peter 2
1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, all evil speakings,
2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,



The Greek word for named does not me RE named, it means to call someone by, not necessarily to rename them.

Luke 6:14 14 Simon, (whom he also named Peter,)

Mark 3:14-16 (NKJV)
14Then He appointed twelve, that they might be with Him and that He might send them out to preach, 15and to have power to heal sicknesses and to cast out demons: 16Simon, to whom He gave the name Peter;

John1

42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

John has the most complete explanation as well as when this was first said, when Simeon first met Jesus.



You Shall be called a stone.



He was the first stone and many stones have been added since, he understood who he was, why not take his word for it?



Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house,



Jesus is and always will be the foundation stone, the bedrock and the stones that are believers are what is built on top of him into a spiritual house or Temple of the Lord. Peter was just the first one who believed on Him so that he may have everlasting life. Thomas was probably the 11th and last of the twelve to be set into place of the disciples, for he needed to see after and touch to believe, but he still became a stone, just like Simeon.





If someone says to you, "from now on you will be called my friend", does that change your name to friend? No, it does not, it just symbolizes what you now are to me, and the same happened with Simon, when he had revealed to him who the Lord was THEN he was now a living stone in the called out ones , the stones that would built the spiritual temple of the Lord.

 

[Philip]

Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house

The word used for stone here is lithos, not petra or Petros. There is no parallel between Peter's statement about living stones and Christ's renaming Peter.

 

[Y’VA–REKH’KHA ADONAI]

Not so sure about that, found this:

KE'PHA' is used in the Syriac N.T. as the translation of both the Greek words LITHOS and PETROS.

The Greek word LITHOS, which means "a stone" (generally of a size which could be picked up or moved) is ALWAYS translated by the Syriac word KE'PHA'.

As LITHOS in classical Greek is the common prose word for "a stone" (see the quote from Liddle and Scott's Lexicon, above) and PETROS is more common in poetry, this shows that the definition of KE'PHA' as "a stone" is correct. The Syriac KE'PHA' is equivalent to the Greek LITHOS, a movable stone.

KE'PHA' IS ALWAYS USED TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD LITHOS.

SHU'A IS THE MORE USUAL AND CORRECT SYRIAC WORD TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD PETRA.

KE'PHA IS A MOVABLE STONE = LITHOS / PETROS.

SHU'A IS A MASSIVE ROCK = PETRA.

The Syriac word SHU`A' is NEVER used to translate the Greek word LITHOS. Because a LITHOS is NOT a large massive rock, but a SHU`A' is. The Syriac KE'PHA' is correctly used to translate the Greek words LITHOS and PETROS because these are movable stones.

So is Peter the stone or rock?

 

[Philip]

The meaning of shu'a is not relevent. It is not used in Matthew 16:18. Both the words Petros and petra are Kepha in the Aramaic text. Christ used exactly the same word when He said, "you are Peter" and "on this rock".

BTW, do you still stand by this statement:

Luke was getting his information second hand that is why he wrote it that way, just to define for Theophilos whom he was speaking of.

or are you willing to admit that Christ did rename Simon?

 

[Godzman]

Christ is the cornerstone, the foundation is the confession of Jesus as the Son of the living God, the Christ.

God would not build his church on a fallible man.

 

[Serapha]

Hi There!




I have posted this before in the same type of discussion, but since it is background for the passage, I will post the information again.


[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Matthew 16:13-20 13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 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. 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. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. [/font]
"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?"


When Jesus walked along the coast of Caesarea Philippi with the disciples, the view of Caesarea Philippi was that of the temple which was built there along the rocky coastline. That particular temple was built in honor of the pagan god named "Pan". In addition to the temple built there, niches were carved out of the rock walls so there might be stone statues of gods placed in them so that passing ships might be able to see the stone images from their ship in the Galilee. Using the work "rock" or "stone" has special significance for that place because of the visible stone idols seen from the distance.

Also, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

There is a cave in the area of the temple built to Pan that is where the River Jordan originates and where the "gates of hell" are said to exist. It was traditional belief for the area of Caesarea Philippi that when the water was lowered in the cave, that the gates of hell were opened and demons could come forth to walk on the earth.


Christ was stating that no demonic force could prevail against His church. And what do we bind on earth?

~malaka~

 

[Luchnia]

If Peter is the catholic pope, they have one messed up pope! Sort of makes you wonder, doesn't it, how Jesus, the head, stepped out of the way to allow the one satan chose to sift to lead a church? I guess it is fitting that Peter is the head of the catholic church and Jesus is the head of The Church

The irony of it all is that it is as simple as can be that Peter is no more alluded to as pope in God's word than mickey mouse is pope and yet, the argument looms on even today. If an argument of credibility could be built, it would have to be built upon Paul as Paul was a "chosen vessel" to bear Jesus name. Peter could not even hold that rank. Maybe those that believe Peter was pope like that view because of Peter's stubbornness, especially when Paul corrected him face to face-poor guy.

Word up!

 

[MizDoulos]

Please note: Do not allow our comments to disrupt the harmony on this thread by putting down another group (Rule 2). Everyone has his own viewpoints on this topic, but let's not allow the thread to deteriorate any further. Please respond kindly and respect each other's opinions.

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[Ratjaws]

If Peter is the catholic pope, they have one messed up pope! Sort of makes you wonder, doesn't it, how Jesus, the head, stepped out of the way to allow the one satan chose to sift to lead a church? I guess it is fitting that Peter is the head of the catholic church and Jesus is the head of The Church

The irony of it all is that it is as simple as can be that Peter is no more alluded to as pope in God's word than mickey mouse is pope and yet, the argument looms on even today. If an argument of credibility could be built, it would have to be built upon Paul as Paul was a "chosen vessel" to bear Jesus name. Peter could not even hold that rank. Maybe those that believe Peter was pope like that view because of Peter's stubbornness, especially when Paul corrected him face to face-poor guy.

Word up!

Luchnia,
I don't think you really understand what the Church teaches on this matter or what scripture indicates. This subject is a matter of getting "line upon line, precept upon precept" to use a biblical phrase. In other words one needs to see scripture in the proper order to understand the papacy and it's necessity.

St. Peter is the first pope of the whole Christian Church even though only Catholics admit to this. First off, it's funny thing how you refute yourself by your own admission that "the argument looms on even today" for the Catholic doctrine of the Petrine Promise. Do you realize that's over 2000 years both the Catholic Church and Her doctrines have been in effect? If the Evil One has the power to do this, to unite people in an institution that long, then maybe us Christians have the wrong god! But of course I don't buy that and realize that only God can cause an institution stand this long despite it's member's sin.

Speaking of sin it does seem that "the one satan chose to sift" is head of Christ's Church despite "Peter's stubborness." Seems to me this again is proof of God's divine protection on His Church. It just seems fitting to me for the Holy Spirit to have chosen and worked through a sinful vessel. Isn't this exactly what scripture tells us... that God works through our brokenness and weakness?

If you really think the pope is "messed up" then I assume you've read his writings? Of course that would only be fair for one to have done so when they make accusations. So which encyclical or apostolic letters have you read? Have you heard any of John Paul II's Wednesday audiences? Can you cite for us just exactly what he has said that is so "messed up?" Can you give any of the last 263 Vicar of Christ's words down throughtout the centuries?

For me and my house we will trust the Lord and the fact that He guides the Church through these fallible men. Otherwise am I to believe that Christ guides us by the error and differences of over 30,000 competing denominations? Does our invisible God who became incarnate, thus visible, expect us to guess or become theologians in order to know what inerrant scripture says without an infallible teacher? If you stop and look more closely you will see that St. Paul was correcting Peter not for a doctrinal matter (unchaneable) but for one that is disciplinary (and thus changeable). It was how he handled himself differently in front of the Jews and Gentiles that was at issue as well as whether one could eat meat offered to idols (idols that St. Paul said were no gods at all and the meat could be eaten in good conscience if not around weaker Christians). Then too Christ never told St. Paul to "feed my sheep," or praise him for having heard the Holy Spirit when St. Peter said "thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God!," did He?

Allow me to give you a little lesson in anatomy. St. Paul alludes to Christians as being "members" of the body of Christ. If this analogy were to hold true with any degree of accuracy it seems every body has a head that tells the members, like hands and feet and eyes and ears, what to do. This whole body must have integrity or how could it work together which is what Christians are supposed to do. And even the pagan Greeks knew (came to the conclusion through right reason which is God given) that there must be a principle of life for a body. Thus the soul is said to animate one's body and we know this to be true even in science because when the soul separates from that body we call it a corpse, and the person is considered to be dead. Thus, as the person's soul brings to life their body, so too the Holy Spirit enlivens the body of Christ. But every visible body has a visible head and if that head be separated from the body we again have what is called a corpse! Therefore it seems that Christ's body must have a visible head since we members are all visible and that head and members are all kept "alive in Christ" by the Holy Spirit who is the Church's principle of life. The Spirit of God is the soul which animates the head and members. St. Paul's analogy is neat, clean and definitely rings of truth. With this in mind do you still want to decapitate Christ's body? Wouldn't that lead to what we have... thousands of denom's all running around competing with each other rather than visibly united under one head? Wouldn't Christ's prayer "that they be one" as He and the Father were one be in vain if the Protestant conception of only an invisible unity be true? What is an "invisible unity for that matter? And what about the scandal a visibly disoriented body gives to atheists and agnostics?

From all of the above and more I say that the Church's teaching that Christ founded His Church on more than "St. Peter's confession of faith," that He found it on St. Peter "the rock" is more fitting in a world that "walks by sight" and not by faith! Once I saw this was true it was an easy step to accept faith. Even the Ethopian eunich said to St. Steven "how can I understand unless someone teaches me?" I say along with Christ's Church that unity is both invisible and visible. I say the holy Father by virtue of his office enjoys the charism of infallibility (guided by the H.S.) when pronouncing any teaching on "faith and morals" and this does not mean he is impeccable (sinless). I say Christ did not start a new religion, rather instituted a Church which guards and teaches faithfully to all people at all times the whole deposit of faith! I say St. Peter was given the "keys to the kingdom" and not St. Paul as both Matthew 16:18-19 and Isaiah 22:15-25 allude to. I say the Church and not "the bible" is the "pillar and ground of truth." (1Tim.3:15) I also say we cannot "take it to the church" unless it is a visible Church. (Mt.18:15-20) I say the bible backs up the Catholic faith and is a Catholic book precisely because it was Catholics who wrote it and who copied it with their own sweat and blood up until the time of the printing press in the 1400's (which by the way was invented by Guttenberg... a Catholic!).

Sincerely, Tim (alias Ratjaws)

 

[Luchnia]

Let the Word give you back your own words, but let's align them with God's word this time that the truth may bring freedom from bondage and the servant Jesus be lifted up instead of lording it over others with knowledge that lacks wisdom to handle it correctly.

Allow God's Word to give you a little lesson in anatomy as you have sought to give me a "lesson." Jesus never, not once, ackowledged Peter as head, nor did anyone else for that matter. If anything, Peter was further behind than most as Paul had to correct Peter's misunderstandings. May we look at the "head" of The Church? Now, consider the head of your church, Peter while reading these text.

The true head of The Church, Jesus:
Ephes. 1:22-23 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, [23] Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. (the body is never the head)

Ephes. 4:15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: (Christ is the head, not Peter)

Ephes. 5:23-31 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. [24] Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. [25] Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; [26] That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, [27] That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. [28] So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. [29] For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: [30] For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. [31] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. (Christ is the head, not Peter)

Col. 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Col. 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:

Col. 2:19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. (if you hold Peter, you do not hold Christ, the head)

These are just a few text, but there are so many that refute the theory that Peter is pope, or head of something.

Now, for the pinnacle:
1 Cor. 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (Notice the words "every man." This is our head, not Peter, Paul, Timothy, Stephen, etc. This does not take away from the great men of God, but puts headship where headship belongs. Jesus knew what He was doing by not placing Peter in a position of authority over men.)

Who is the stone? Who is the rock?

Matthew 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? (Jesus knew where you would place Peter, didn't He?)

Luke 20:17 And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?

Acts 4:11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

1 Peter 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

Once again we see, it is Jesus, not Peter. No matter what men claim, we must stand on the truth of the Spirit, the Word, even Jesus. Christ, not Peter is the only foundation and rock:

Ephes. 2:19-22 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; [20] And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; [21] In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: [22] In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

You cannot find one reference in the New Testament to the church at Rome or of Peter as the first pope. You do not even see Peter as being a good model for Christians. Jesus never gave Peter any such pre-eminence. If pre-eminence could have been granted to any group that could hold claim of papacy it would be the churches in Judea.

1 Thes. 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:

It boggles the mind why this is so difficult to understand. Even looking to find Rome in God's word, there is not one reference to Rome as even as much as a pattern for the Church. It is not found in any Scripture.

We can go on and on and disprove the opinion that peter is pope, but the argument seems so futile. Will this really change anyone's mind? I mean the very words of God refute the doctrine of peter being pope and it would make no difference whatsoever. So what do we debate it for? To you, Peter is your pope and the Word will not convince you otherwise. It is evident by your belief and rightly so.

To the rest of us, the HEAD is Christ, and no man holds succession above another man just as I do not take the authority Christ has granted me to take succession over you. We also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit, Jesus Christ, Himself being the cheif corner stone and we each being lively stones supporting that ROCK, JESUS!

Word up!

 

[ten-k]

Deut.18:10-11-12

When you are come into the land which the Lord
thy God gives you, you must not learn to do after
the abominations of those nations.
There must not be found among you that maketh his
son or his daughter to pass through the fire,
those that use divination
an observer of times
or an enchanter
or a witch
or a charmer
or a consulter with familiar spirits
or a wizard
or a necromancer, a communicator with the 'dead'.
For all that do these things are an
abomination unto the Lord.

 

[Philip]

Deut.18:10-11-12

I fail to see the connect between this passage and the topic of this thread.

 

[Philip]

Who is the stone? Who is the rock?

Matthew 21:42
Luke 20:17
Acts 4:11
1 Peter 2:7

All of those passages use the word lithos, not petra. They are not parallel to Matthew 16:18.