Upon this rock

[Root of Jesse]

The Holy Spirit would bring to mind the word's in the OT about a circumcised heart that the disciples would have known well from Deut 10 and 30. If you see your doctrine in the bible you folk have not shown it.

Oh, we've shown it over and over and over. You don't accept it. That's where we shrug our shoulders.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Oh, we've shown it over and over and over. You don't accept it. That's where we shrug our shoulders.

vatican coded doesn't count

 

[Root of Jesse]

vatican coded doesn't count

Well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. But the proof is there.

 

[Rick Otto]

When you think of the Bishop of Rome's claim of superiority over theCouncils?
Further, remember his claims to Infallibility and Jurisdiction .

It is more responsibility than one man should bear.
Other than the man Jesus Christ, that is.
That man wears it well.

 

[Mark51]

Jesus thus reveals that Peter is to receive special privileges. However, Peter was not given first place among the apostles, nor is he made the foundation of the congregation.

Both Peter and Paul correctly understood that Jesus himself was the foretold rock-mass. Peter wrote that those who are built as “living stones” of a spiritual house on the rock-mass, Christ, were “a people for special possession [to] declare abroad the excellencies” of the One who called them. (1 Peter 2:4-9; Psalm 118:22; Isaiah 8:14; 1 Corinthians 10:1-4). But Peter is to be given three keys with which to open, as it were, the opportunity for groups of people to enter the Kingdom of the heavens.

Peter would use the first key at Pentecost 33 C.E. to show repentant Jews what they must do to be saved. He would use the second shortly afterward to open to believing Samaritans the opportunity to enter God’s Kingdom. Then, in 36 C.E. he would use the third key to open to uncircumcised Gentiles, Cornelius and his friends, the same opportunity.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Jesus thus reveals that Peter is to receive special privileges. However, Peter was not given first place among the apostles, nor is he made the foundation of the congregation.

Both Peter and Paul correctly understood that Jesus himself was the foretold rock-mass. Peter wrote that those who are built as “living stones” of a spiritual house on the rock-mass, Christ, were “a people for special possession [to] declare abroad the excellencies” of the One who called them. (1 Peter 2:4-9; Psalm 118:22; Isaiah 8:14; 1 Corinthians 10:1-4). But Peter is to be given three keys with which to open, as it were, the opportunity for groups of people to enter the Kingdom of the heavens.

Peter would use the first key at Pentecost 33 C.E. to show repentant Jews what they must do to be saved. He would use the second shortly afterward to open to believing Samaritans the opportunity to enter God’s Kingdom. Then, in 36 C.E. he would use the third key to open to uncircumcised Gentiles, Cornelius and his friends, the same opportunity.

So why was he named first among the apostles in almost any instance where they were mentioned as a group? Peter and John, Peter and the other apostles, etc? There is no dispute that Jesus is THE Rock of the Church, but Peter is the Rock on Earth, as are his successors. Any Church not based on Christ's foundation is doomed.

 

[sunlover1]

So why was he named first among the apostles in almost any instance where they were mentioned as a group? Peter and John, Peter and the other apostles, etc?'

In "almost" any mention as a group? If not 'every' instance, then why worry about why?
If God hasn't mentioned a reason then what more can we say?

There is no dispute that Jesus is THE Rock of the Church,

The rock of ages! Amen!

...but Peter is the Rock on Earth, as are his successors

That's one theory.

Any Church not based on Christ's foundation is doomed.

There's but one church, amen?
Many religions, but one church

 

[Root of Jesse]

In "almost" any mention as a group? If not 'every' instance, then why worry about why?
If God hasn't mentioned a reason then what more can we say?

I'm not worried why, others are. But the Gospels were written by men, and in every case I know of, Peter is mentioned first.

The rock of ages! Amen!


That's one theory.

The one of Jesus, for sure.

There's but one church, amen?
Many religions, but one church

One faith, one baptism, one LORD. One truth, many attempts at truth.
There is that pesky Satanic church, though...

 

[Albion]

So why was he named first among the apostles in almost any instance where they were mentioned as a group? Peter and John, Peter and the other apostles, etc? There is no dispute that Jesus is THE Rock of the Church, but Peter is the Rock on Earth, as are his successors. Any Church not based on Christ's foundation is doomed.

It's most likely that Christ was making a pun when speaking of Peter as "Rock." The idea that Christ was choosing him to rule over anything--or worse, the successor bishops of Rome--is strictly an invention of a later time.

 

[Rick Otto]

...And being first named isn't being named "first".

 

[BobRyan]

Regarding Matthew 16:18-19

Albion, I have always found Protestant assertions that somehow the "rock" that Jesus builds the church on is Peter's faith, and other logical backflips, to be rediculous. Anything other than the "rock" referring to Peter is obviously taking the verse out of context. Don't you agree? And if so, how else do you interpret this verse other than Jesus making Peter the authority of the Church?

Matt 16 sheds some light on the subject
22 Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.” 23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.”

1 Cor 3 sheds some light on the subject
11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ

1 Cor 10 sheds some light on that subject.
4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual Rock (petra) which followed them; and the Rock (Petra) was Christ.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Peter is clearly NOT the rock.

The rock Jesus referred to was the knowledge Peter received.

Knowledge that was not from man but from the Holy Spirit.

From what I understand, the EOC believes it is either the confession/faith of Peter or Christ Himself.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/matt-16-18-and-greek-question.6871750/page-2

Macarius said: ↑
I must second the opinion of many others who have posted here.

The majority of the ECF's, East and West, did not consider the rock to refer to Peter, but rather to either the confession or to Christ Himself. Peter was the rock only in so much as he was the first to voice this confession (to embody it) and only in so much as he maintained that confession. It should be noted that Augustine himself, at the end of his life, considered the rock of Matt 16 to be Peter's CONFESSION and not Peter himself.

The EO, therefore, takes any bishop confessing the basic orthodox faith who is in communion with the other bishops as a "successor" of Peter in this moment.

I tend to agree..........

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/peter-is-not-the-rock.5523201/
Peter Is Not The Rock!

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/justan...aims-of-roman-catholicism-by-william-webster/

The Church Fathers' Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18 ~An Historical Refutation of the Claims of Roman Catholicism, by William Webster
Includes a Critique of Jesus, Peter and the Keys

Matthew 16:18 is the critical passage of Scripture for the establishment of the authority claims of the Roman Catholic Church. It is upon the interpretation of the rock and keys that the entire structure of the Church of Rome rests.
And Vatican I plainly states that its interpretation of Matthew 16 is that which has been held by the Church from the very beginning and is therefore not a doctrinal development. The Council asserted that its interpretation was grounded upon the unanimous consent of the fathers.

In saying this Vatican I is claiming a two thousand year consensus for its interpretation and teaching. It specifically states that the Roman Catholic Church alone has authority to interpret scripture and that it is unlawful to interpret it in any way contrary to what it calls the ‘unanimous consent of the fathers.’ This principle does not mean that every single father agrees on a particular interpretation of scripture, but it does mean that there is a general consensus of interpretation, and Vatican I claims to be consistent with that consensus.

This is very important to establish because it has direct bearing on the Roman Church’s claim, that of being the one true Church established by Christ, unchanged from the very beginning..............

.