Upon this rock

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

The Old Testament has to be interpreted in light of the New. And Jesus (God) was the one who changed Simon's name to Peter (which means rock). There's a prophecy about this in Isaiah 22.

There is so much about stones from Genesis to Revelation that it's worth a whole word study.

 

[Meowzltov]

There is so much about stones from Genesis to Revelation that it's worth a whole word study.

So what? It's a good item for a metaphor. It gets used for many different things. That sheds no light on this issue.

 

[GoingByzantine]

Whom or what, on earth, would you suggest for the foundation? Keep in mind that He had not sent the Holy Spirit, yet, and that the HS is the guide of the Church. The pope, or Peter, is the instrument.

The Church's one foundation is Christ. But Peter is the Rock upon which the Church on earth was built.

I am going to be nit picky and say that Peter was "a" instrument, as opposed to "the" instrument. Matthew 28:16-20 clearly makes it known that all the apostles were commissioned to create the Church, so in truth it was the apostles as a whole that were the instrument, and Peter was one part of that whole. The church was not created by Peter alone, and others were more instrumental then he was.

Many Catholics will say that the Catholic Church traces its apostolic succession through Peter, when in actuality it traces its apostolic succession through all the apostles, sadly there was a time when many lost sight of this...but today more and more people are realizing that Christianity has many valid expressions and heritages that originated in the time of the cross. Of course I am not trying to diminish Peter, who Jesus clearly entrusted with many responsibilities, I am just shedding light on the team nature of the early church.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

So what? It's a good item for a metaphor. It gets used for many different things. That sheds no light on this issue.

You obviously have no respect for biblical interpretation. And no, not according to my interpretation but biblical, if one chooses to follow a word study. It sheds more light than you will ever know.

 

[Meowzltov]

You obviously have no respect for biblical interpretation. And no, not according to my interpretation but biblical, if one chooses to follow a word study. It sheds more light than you will ever know.

I find that people who do this get into more trouble than otherwise. They connect verses that are completely unrelated for example, or begin attributing one verses meaning to another verse where it doesn't apply. They stop reading in context.

 

[RhaegarTargaryen]

Jesus did not call Peter Satan. He told Satan to get behind Him. So, no to your question.

Ahhh mental gymnastics....how very convenient.
But no. Jesus was speaking to Peter when he said it. Try again.

 

[MrMoe]

Jesus did not call Peter Satan. He told Satan to get behind Him. So, no to your question.

The start of the verse says Jesus "turned, and said to Peter". So it's pretty obvious Jesus comment was directed at Peter.

 

[Rick Otto]

The Church's one foundation is Christ. But Peter is the Rock upon which the Church on earth was built.

This a fine example of concise self contradiction, invisible to to the eye of the presenter.

"Jesus did not call Peter Satan. He told Satan to get behind Him."

He was speaking to Peter when he said it.
If you admit your mistake on this, it will restore some integrity to your many other mistakes, and if you don't, you will be tolerated but not taken seriously by those of us who know you.

 

[Standing Up]

So what? It's a good item for a metaphor. It gets used for many different things. That sheds no light on this issue.

The rock was Christ, says scripture (1 Cor 10:4). All the earliest references from Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and others refer the rock to Christ. There are no earliest references are to Peter as rock.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Who do you think that the revelation from the Father came from? It was thru the Holy Spirit and this is what was being referred to as that which the church is founded on!!!! The instrument is the vessels that He has prepared, not just Peter or the pope but every believer

Of course, but Jesus only sent the HS after he rose from the dead. The HS guides His Church through Peter and his successors and the successors of the apostles.

 

[Root of Jesse]

This a fine example of concise self contradiction, invisible to to the eye of the presenter.

"Jesus did not call Peter Satan. He told Satan to get behind Him."

He was speaking to Peter when he said it.
If you admit your mistake on this, it will restore some integrity to your many other mistakes, and if you don't, you will be tolerated but not taken seriously by those of us who know you.

I didn't make any mistake. Jesus did not call Peter Satan. But it doesn't really matter if he did or didn't, as we see all through the Gospel, demonic possession isn't a permanent state. We're all possessed at some point or another.
Peter’s refusal to accept Jesus’ predicted suffering and death is seen as a satanic attempt to deflect Jesus from his God-appointed course, and the disciple is addressed in terms that recall Jesus’ dismissal of the devil in the temptation account (Mt 4:10: “Get away, Satan!”).

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Of course, but Jesus only sent the HS after he rose from the dead. The HS guides His Church through Peter and his successors and the successors of the apostles.

yes but does not an answer make.

The bible refers only to overseers as guides to the church. The Greek word for overseer is composed of over and seer; hence, overseer. An overseer in a local church is an elder (Acts 20:17, 28). The two titles refer to the same person, elder denoting a person of maturity, and overseer denoting the function of an elder. It was Ignatius in the second century who taught that an overseer, a bishop, is higher than an elder. From this erroneous teaching came the hierarchy of bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and the pope. When you start with an erroneous conclusion you can only go further afield.

 

[Root of Jesse]

yes but does not an answer make.

The bible refers only to overseers as guides to the church. The Greek word for overseer is composed of over and seer; hence, overseer. An overseer in a local church is an elder (Acts 20:17, 28). The two titles refer to the same person, elder denoting a person of maturity, and overseer denoting the function of an elder. It was Ignatius in the second century who taught that an overseer, a bishop, is higher than an elder. From this erroneous teaching came the hierarchy of bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and the pope. When you start with an erroneous conclusion you can only go further afield.

Actually, the term comes from Acts, and the post was ordained by others who had hands laid on them. Timothy was a young one, appointed by Paul, as was Titus.

 

[YoureMyBeloved]

I guess I have to re-read Acts again to contribute to the thread, but I don't recall Peter exercising such supposed authority. The Apostles always put it to a vote for decisions.

In Acts 8:14 Peter and John were sent to Samaria by the Apostles. You would think if he has the authority , he would be the one sent someone, right? By another way, Peter is always named before all the apostles and talks for all them in Acts, it has to have some meaning.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yeah, Peter was the deal breaker. If Peter was the absolute authority, they would have not even voted and Peter would have made the decision right there, but he didn't did he? I don't think Peter viewed himself as the absolute authority, and I can only assume the bishops that followed him made the mistake of thinking otherwise to meet their own ends. I am not saying the RCC is bad, but it had a long and bad history of crimes against humanity. History tells me that no vicar of God could make sure horrible "mistakes". and I use that term lightly, because God would not grant authority to people who allowed or granted permission to commit such atrocities. There is evidence of that all over the OT in the pre-exile books.

Peter was not the authority, he was the chief of the apostles. The Holy Spirit was the authority.
You know, if you pay attention to what Gamaliel told the Sanhedrin, you could see that, when you say "it had a long and bad history...", that this makes it an institution of God. Sure, men made great mistakes in the name of Jesus, but this is true of every denomination. That the RCC has endured despite all her faults says something about her.
God's Church on Earth is run by men. Jesus made Peter the head of the apostles, even though he knew he would deny him 3 times and run away a coward. The Holy Spirit is the one who guides Peter and his successors, and the apostles and theirs.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You see, these are the kinds of interpretations that I find based on absolutely nothing, contrary to all context. As a teacher I have had to grade papers for reading comprehension -- I would give this an D-.

That's because they don't accept the basis of the people who learned from the Apostles themselves, and then wrote down what was meant-given context.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Try your best to put what you have been taught on the shelf and re-read the scriptures about the event.

Start with the question Jesus asked.

Matt 16:13
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? KJV

They answered and then Jesus asked another question.

Matt 16:15
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? KJV

Peter answered;

Matt 16:16
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. KJV

Jesus responded.

His response is the "subject" of what else He said in the conversation.

His response was about the source of what Peter said.

His response was that Peter did not learn that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God from men.

Matt 16:17
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. KJV

Jesus said that Peter learned that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God from "my Father which is in heaven".

Then the verse that you believe I interpreted incorrectly.

Matt 16:18
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

The word used for Peter is petros, masculine in gender, meaning a detached large fragment of rock.

The "rock" Jesus then spoke about.

The "rock" He would build His church on.

Is another word.

That word is petra, feminine in gender, a massive rock.

Two different rocks.
Peter, a detached fragment of rock.

Petra, a massive rock, on which Jesus would build His church.

The Petra, large massive rock is the subject Jesus was talking about.

That subject being knowledge revealed to men by the Father in heaven.

Peter is not the massive rock the church was built on.

You are Rock [petros, masculine in gender, a detached but large fragment of rock], and upon this massive rock [petra, feminine in gender, feminine demonstrative pronoun cannot go back to masculine petros; petra, a rocky peak, a massive rock] I will build my Church.

Why would anyone put true teaching on the shelf? The Petros/petra argument is nothing. It's a Kephas/Kepha argument. There's no two different rocks.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Paul uses the names (Petros (meaning Peter and Kephas/ Cephas enterchangably as did Jesus

John 1:42 (ESV)
42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).

Galatians 1:18 (ESV)
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.

Galatians 2:9–14 (ESV)
9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 Only, they asked us to remember the poor, …

Galatians 2:7–8 (ESV)
7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine

 

[Root of Jesse]

Paul uses the names (Petros (meaning Peter and Kephas/ Cephas enterchangably as did Jesus

John 1:42 (ESV)
42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).

Galatians 1:18 (ESV)
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.

Galatians 2:9–14 (ESV)
9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 Only, they asked us to remember the poor, …

Galatians 2:7–8 (ESV)
7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine

Petros is the Greek translation of Kephas. There is no Petros/petra argument-that's been trumped up by Protestants.

 

[Job8]

Regarding Matthew 16:18-19
how else do you interpret this verse other than Jesus making Peter the authority of the Church?

This is one of the most minsunderstood passages of Scripture, primarily because of the Catholic spin on it. Since Christ is clearly called "the Rock" in Scripture there can be no argument as to who the Rock is. And it is not Peter's confession of faith that is the Rock, but the one whom he professes and proclaims to be the Christ, the Son of the living God. Had the KJV translators capitalized "Rock" as they did in 1 Cor 10:4, we would not even be having this discussion. Let's look at this passage carefully:

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.

Peter is "petros" but Christ is "PETRA". The Greek text makes it very clear as to who the Rock really is. We read elsewhere that "Other FOUNDATION can no man lay, than that is laid, which is JESUS CHRIST (1 Cor 3:11) which further solidifies the Rock upon who the Church is built. The one who bases his life on the sayings of CHRIST is the one who builds his house upon THE ROCK.