Upon this rock

[Root of Jesse]

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.

While I agree that Christ is the Rock, Jesus calls Peter Rock. He doesn't distinguish small stone, or whatever. What he says is that the former Simon bar Jonah is now called Rock, and will be the rock upon which He will build His Church.
Again, the Petros/petra argument is convoluted, because the Aramaic, in which Matthew was written, is "Kephas".

By the way, the Catholic 'spin' on the interpretation of Scripture has pride of place, because your Scripture comes from Catholics, who wrote it, inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it faithfully, and then explain to their disciples what they meant by what they wrote.

 

[Meowzltov]

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.

Metaphors are used for multiple purposes. Just because Christ is the rock in one verse, doesn't mean he is the rock in all verses. Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18.

 

[Meowzltov]

Since Christ is clearly called "the Rock" in Scripture there can be no argument as to who the Rock is.

There is no argument that Peter is the rock. Look, metaphors are used for more than one purpose. Just because Jesus is the rock in some verses doesn't make him the rock in all verses.

 

[Meowzltov]

Peter is "petros" but Christ is "PETRA".

This is the kind of response that I'm complaining about in my OP.

 

[Job8]

While I agree that Christ is the Rock, Jesus calls Peter Rock. He doesn't distinguish small stone, or whatever.

Please note carefully what is written in the Greek:καγω δε σοι λεγω οτι συ ει πετρος (stone) και επι ταυτη τη πετρα (Rock) οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν και πυλαι αδου ου κατισχυσουσιν αυτης. The very fact that two different words are used in the same verse should alert the "alert" reader.

Again, the Petros/petra argument is convoluted, because the Aramaic, in which Matthew was written, is "Kephas".

Let's disregard the so-called Aramaic version of Matthew. Let's stick with the facts. The New Testament is written in Greek, and Matthew also wrote in Greek (as did all the others). Where the Aramaic word is found in the text we have "Cephas" (Kepha), but where it is "Peter", it is Petros.

By the way, the Catholic 'spin' on the interpretation of Scripture has pride of place, because your Scripture comes from Catholics, who wrote it, inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it faithfully, and then explain to their disciples what they meant by what they wrote.

This is called putting an additional spin on the spin. Politicians are good at doing that, and the popes were politicians first and foremost.

 

[Job8]

This is the kind of response that I'm complaining about in my OP.

You should be thankful, not complaining, because the truth always trumps fiction.

 

[Standing Up]

Metaphors are used for multiple purposes. Just because Christ is the rock in one verse, doesn't mean he is the rock in all verses. Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18.

Except no one thought that Jesus was saying Peter is the rock in Mt. 16:18 at least for the first 300 years. It is all backspin to think it now..

Christ is the rock says scripture. And all of the early witnesses agree. No one says or thinks Peter is the rock for centuries after Pentecost

 

[Root of Jesse]

Except no one thought that Jesus was saying Peter is the rock in Mt. 16:18 at least for the first 300 years. It is all backspin to think it now..

Christ is the rock says scripture. And all of the early witnesses agree. No one says or thinks Peter is the rock for centuries after Pentecost

By what standard do you make your first assertion? Many people wrote about Peter being the rock...

 

[prodromos]

Metaphors are used for multiple purposes. Just because Christ is the rock in one verse, doesn't mean he is the rock in all verses. Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18.

You have yet to respond to the fact that the overwhelming majority of Church Fathers interpret Matthew 16:18 as referring to Peter's confession, according to the research of the good Bishop of St Louis.

 

[prodromos]

Please note carefully what is written in the Greek:καγω δε σοι λεγω οτι συ ει πετρος (stone) και επι ταυτη τη πετρα (Rock) οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν και πυλαι αδου ου κατισχυσουσιν αυτης. The very fact that two different words are used in the same verse should alert the "alert" reader.

However the reader who is educated in Greek will understand that unlike English, Greek words have gender and when a man is named after an object which is a feminine noun, the name must take the masculine form. If the apostles were women , we would not be having this silly argument. It would be "petra" everywhere.

Let's disregard the so-called Aramaic version of Matthew. Let's stick with the facts. The New Testament is written in Greek, and Matthew also wrote in Greek (as did all the others). Where the Aramaic word is found in the text we have "Cephas" (Kepha), but where it is "Peter", it is Petros.

The fact that his new name is recorded in the Scriptures in Aramaic where it plainly means "rock" and not "pebble", demonstrates cleary the silliness of the "petra/petros" argument. If Simon was given the name "pebble" then the Aramaic name given would mean "pebble". Since "Cephas" actually means "rock" you are left with no argument. Those are the facts.

 

[concretecamper]

You have yet to respond to the fact that the overwhelming majority of Church Fathers interpret Matthew 16:18 as referring to Peter's confession, according to the research of the good Bishop of St Louis.

You can say 10 times....it still doesn't make it true. Even St Cyprian disagrees with you.

 

[prodromos]

By what standard do you make your first assertion? Many people wrote about Peter being the rock...

Many more wrote about Peter's confession being the rock.

 

[prodromos]

You can say 10 times....it still doesn't make it true. Even St Cyprian disagrees with you.

Huh?
I've given you the findings of the research of one of your own Bishops. He was one of a number of Bishops who opposed the dogma of Papal infallibility. He argued that if there was no clear consensus among the Church Fathers (as his research demonstrated) then it could not be made dogma.

How exactly does St Cyprian disagree?

 

[MoreCoffee]

You have yet to respond to the fact that the overwhelming majority of Church Fathers interpret Matthew 16:18 as referring to Peter's confession, according to the research of the good Bishop of St Louis.

Somehow "overwhelming" isn't quite the word for less than a half dozen ...

 

[Root of Jesse]

Many more wrote about Peter's confession being the rock.

I don't say it's not, but it's more likely both. That whole scenario, Jesus is speaking on several levels all at once.

 

[prodromos]

Somehow "overwhelming" isn't quite the word for less than a half dozen ...

Where did you pull that figure from?

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/peter-bishop-of-rome.7890638/#post-68034661

 

[prodromos]

I don't say it's not, but it's more likely both. That whole scenario, Jesus is speaking on several levels all at once.

Now you are beginning to sound Orthodox

 

[Root of Jesse]

Now you are beginning to sound Orthodox

I am Orthodox. Catholic, though.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Where did you pull that figure from?

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/peter-bishop-of-rome.7890638/#post-68034661

From the trail of quotes in the posts related to the one to which I replied.

Do you really think that 44 church fathers (from what age of church history?) held such a view? And do you believe that each of the five categories in the Archbishop's list are mutually exclusive? Surely you are aware that some church fathers taught two or more of the interpretations in the list? And does it really matter if 44 did? The Church teaches that it is saint Peter who is the rock and a careful exegesis of Matthew 16 yields the same result; namely that saint Peter is the Rock upon whom Christ builds his church.

By the way, Archbishop Kenrick of St Louis did his work in 1870 AD prior to the first Vatican council and his prepared speech was not delivered at the council. Further Archbishop Kenrick of St Louis was opposed to the doctrine of papal infallibility before it was declared as dogma by the first Vatican council. So all things considered it does not seem that his list was very significant in the debate and I don't see why it is significant in this thread either. Archbishop Kenrick of St Louis also repudiated his own speech and the list in it as based on a misapprehension of the teaching of the council of Trent's teaching on the right use of the church fathers.

 

[Meowzltov]

Except no one thought that Jesus was saying Peter is the rock in Mt. 16:18 at least for the first 300 years. It is all backspin to think it now..

balogna. They had the same arguments we are having now.