Upon this rock

[Meowzltov]

Regarding Matthew 16:18-19

Yes, that's what's usually done, but no bishop of Rome cited it on his behalf for over 300 years after Christ. That alone should cue you to the fact that the verse wasn't understood to support the idea of a universal superbishop until it was needed for the Roman bishop's campaign. And, as noted before, there's nothing in Matt 16.18ff that supports the idea anyway.

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?

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

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.

 

[Optimax]

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.

 

[Meowzltov]

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.

At the council of Jerusalem, they came to a consensus rather than majority vote. Peter was the one who summed up the final decision. James, as the host, recognized it and helped organize the letter. At least, that's how it looks to me.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

At the council of Jerusalem, they came to a consensus rather than majority vote. Peter was the one who summed up the final decision. James, as the host, recognized it and helped organize the letter. At least, that's how it looks to me.

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.

 

[Meowzltov]

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.

Ecumenical Councils don't work that way. They don't have all the bishops talk and then the Pope lords it over them in authority. Rather, they are collegial. You see this in every council from Acts 15 right up to Vatican 2.

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.

Well that is your opinion. In the Catholic Church we do notice that while many Popes were scandelous in their sin, they nevertheless faithfully taught an orthodox gospel. IOW there is a difference between impeccability and infallibility.

Remember too that infallibility is a very rare and limited deal -- I find that most protestants (and even quite a few Catholics) don't seem to understand this.

 

[Rick Otto]

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?

I disagree based first upon the switch from personal to impersonal pronouns... "Thou art Peter and upon this..." not "and upon you..."

 

[GoingByzantine]

Honestly Matthew 16:18 is not as important as the later part of the succeeding verse. Matthew 16:19; "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." This command was echoed once more in Matthew 18:18.

The Church is what was bound on Earth, and it was bound by the apostles. The dispute is over what form this bound church took on, and in essence that is a major reason there are so many denominations today.

 

[Meowzltov]

I disagree based first upon the switch from personal to impersonal pronouns... "Thou art Peter and upon this..." not "and upon you..."

Because it is a play on words, Peter meaning rock. You are the rock and upon this rock...

 

[Meowzltov]

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.

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-.

 

[Optimax]

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-.

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.

 

[Albion]

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?

Not necessarily, but even if you are right about this, your conclusions about the meaning of the passage are based upon a theory that someone imparted to you and not upon what the verses say or what the Apostolic Church believed. So I'd challenge you to prove not that you believe what you want to believe but that the Apostolic Church agreed with you.

And if so, how else do you interpret this verse other than Jesus making Peter the authority of the Church?

The most apparent and sensible meaning is just what it says--Christ gave him symbolic keys and keys open things. Peter went on to be the one who was gifted to give a miraculous speech on Pentecost that, for the first time, opened the Gospel to the wider world. No imaginary Papacy, no imaginary universal boss of the Church (which you know very well the Eastern Patriarchs never accepted, ever, so why don't they agree with your interpretation?), and nothing about anything being handed on from Peter to someone else. What about all of that?

 

[Rick Otto]

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-.

I would return the D- for failing to comprehend the impulsiveness in Peter's character, which would render the nickname as friendly sarcasm, which is immediately reinforced by "Get thee behind me..." in the narrative.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Peter's dedication to the Lord can be seen most profoundly in his depth of growth into apostleship, and I believe it's attributed most significantly to detailing in his mind what Christ's words (that he was unable to understood at the time) meant to Peter's life in the time following Christ's death.

It amazes me beyond words that what Peter said about rock/stones are never taken into consideration by people who call themselves members of the church, and especially those who claim apostlic ascestion to ignor Peter's own contemplations and interpretations of Jesus calling him the rock, upon which the church is built upon. Scandelously prideful misconceptions!

1 Peter 2:4-6
4And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God, 5you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For this is contained in Scripture: "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."…

That is the true meaning of what the household of God is and this is what the royal priesthood of the house of God is to accomplish.

Exodus 19:6
you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites."

Proverbs 9:1
Wisdom has built her house; she has set up its seven pillars.

Isaiah 61:6
And you will be called priests of the LORD, you will be named ministers of our God. You will feed on the wealth of nations, and in their riches you will boast.

Isaiah 66:21
And I will select some of them also to be priests and Levites," says the LORD.

Romans 12:1
Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God--this is your true and proper worship.

Romans 15:16
to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles. He gave me the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 3:9
For we are co-workers in God's service; you are God's field, God's building.

Galatians 6:10
Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

1 Timothy 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Hebrews 13:15
Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise--the fruit of lips that openly profess his name.

1 Peter 2:9
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

1 Peter 4:17
For it is time for judgment to begin with God's household; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?

Revelation 1:6
and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father--to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

The proof is in the pudding so they say.

 

[Albion]

I would return the D- for failing to comprehend the impulsiveness in Peter's character, which would render the nickname as friendly sarcasm, which is immediately reinforced by "Get thee behind me..." in the narrative.

None of the folks who base the whole of their religion on Matt 16 :18-19 want you to read that far!

 

[GoingByzantine]

Herein lies a major problem, within some communities there is far too much emphasis put on Matthew 16:18, to the point where the rest of the apostles and their ministry are ignored. Christ commissioned all his apostles, not just Peter!

 

[Meowzltov]

The word used for Peter is petros, masculine in gender, meaning a detached large fragment of rock.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1431698694306-1'); });
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.

See this is the silliness that I was talking about.

 

[Meowzltov]

even if you are right about this, your conclusions about the meaning of the passage are based upon a theory that someone imparted to you

What had been taught to me my whole life is that the "rock" Jesus would build his Church upon was Peter's faith. Quite frankly , as my reading skills grew, it struck me as out of context.

 

[Albion]

What had been taught to me my whole life is that the "rock" Jesus would build his Church upon was Peter's faith. Quite frankly , as my reading skills grew, it struck me as out of context.

As I've said before, even if that is agreed to, NONE OF THE REST follows as true. Yet that is the big point of all of this--proving by this verse that it was Christ's intention to have Peter be the head of a worldwide church...and then his successors as bishops of Rome to exercise the same function. None of that is even hinted at.

 

[Meowzltov]

As I've said before, even if that is agreed to, NONE OF THE REST follows as true

Albion, we are simply going to have to agree to disagree agreeably.