Upon this rock

[Rick Otto]

The church to which I referred is the Catholic Church. Your comment about being "railroaded" is apparently intended to reflect poorly both on the bishop (implying that he adopted a view that he did not really believe) and on the Catholic Church (which your posts implies did the railroading). I can't help but think that kind of remark is in poor taste because it is close to calumny against both Archbishop Kenrick of St Louis and the Catholic Church.

I don't think it reflected poorly on the bishop who gave it his best shot and then let it go.
I think you may have simply succumbed to the romance of religion to be so indignant

 

[Meowzltov]

It translates to "pebble".

This is the kind of thing I was complaining about in my OP.

 

[StephanieSomer]

This is the kind of thing I was complaining about in my OP.

I know. But complaints don't equate to truth. Christ DID use two different words. You can choose to ignore that fact and insist they are equal. But your insistence doesn't make it true.

 

[MoreCoffee]

This is the kind of thing I was complaining about in my OP.

Well some folks need pebbles in their interpretations because dealing with what is in the text is deflating for certain kinds of theology. It's like the chaps who say saint Peter was never in Rome. It's not because there's any real evidence for the claim it just happens to confirm their presuppositions ...

 

[MoreCoffee]

I know. But complaints don't equate to truth. Christ DID use two different words. You can choose to ignore that fact and insist they are equal. But your insistence doesn't make it true.

You know that if it means pebble then translators would put "pebble" in the verse. But translators generally don't do that because they know that the passage is deliberately worded as it is to make a play on the words so that the reader will know that it is Simeon bar Jonah who is the Rock upon which the church is to be built.

 

[Meowzltov]

Yet you've been posting like it was unanimous that the Fathers interpret Matt 16:18 as Peter being the rock. Don't you think your response isn't just a little bit hypocritical?

I haven't mentioned the Early Church Fathers once in my defense. I've appealed to a reading based on what makes grammatical sense.

 

[StephanieSomer]

I haven't mentioned the Early Church Fathers once in my defense. I've appealed to a reading based on what makes grammatical sense.

... of the English text.

 

[Frogster]

Well... really the cornerstone is the most important in the church being built, that being Christ, and Peter was not singled out here, he was in the mix.


Eph 3:20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well... really the cornerstone is the most important in the church being built, that being Christ, and Peter was not singled out here, he was in the mix.


Eph 3:20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

In Matthew 16:18 saint Peter is the Rock upon which the church is built so he cannot be a foundations tone in that massage but in other passages he can be a foundation stone as is indicated in the Apocalypse of saint John the theologian and in other places too.

 

[Standing Up]

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

Tertullian is the first person to mention Peter as the rock, but we also know what Tertullian later thought about Rome's usurping what was given to Peter alone and which was done once.

"I now inquire into your opinion, (to see) from what source you usurp this right to “the Church.”

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, “Upon this rock will I build My Church,”978978 Matt. xvi. 18. “to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;”979979 Matt. xvi. 19 ad init., incorrectly. or, “Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,”980980 Matt. xvi. 19. you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? “On thee,” He says, “will I build My Church;” and, “I will give to thee the keys,” not to the Church;
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iii.viii.xxi.html

 

[MoreCoffee]

Tertullian is the first person to mention Peter as the rock ...

Nope, the Lord Jesus Christ is the first to mention that saint Peter is the Rock upon which the Lord will build his Church and later saint Matthew wrote it down in the gospel according to saint Matthew.

 

[Standing Up]

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

Oops, first 200 years. 200 years before Tertullian picks up on the twist. Prior to that, everyone thought the rock is Christ per scripture.

 

[Standing Up]

Nope, the Lord Jesus Christ is the first to mention that saint Peter is the Rock upon which the Lord will build his Church and later saint Matthew wrote it down in the gospel according to saint Matthew.

Nope, no one understood it that way, including Peter. Peter who calls the elders of Asia Minor to "feed His sheep" (1 Peter 5). And the first mention from Clement of Rome, who should surely have waved the banner, is only content to say, Peter was martyred at Rome.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Nope, no one understood it that way ...

Except for Jesus and saint Peter and the other eleven apostles of the lamb. They all understood it as it is written "And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."

 

[Standing Up]

Except for Jesus and saint Peter and the other eleven apostles of the lamb. They all understood it as it is written "And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."

Again, there is no witness to anyone pre Tertullian c200ad who thought as RC would come to reinterpret Mt.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Again, there is no witness to anyone pre Tertullian c200ad who thought as RC would come to reinterpret Mt.

Except for saint Matthew he's a witness to saint Peter being the Rock upon whom the Lord Jesus Christ will build his church. Your post keeps leaving out the bible. That makes me suspicious of your post's conclusions.

 

[prodromos]

I haven't mentioned the Early Church Fathers once in my defense.

Which is wise of you, seeing as they don't support your exclusivist interpretation

I've appealed to a reading based on what makes grammatical sense.

And I have pointed out that the majority of Church Fathers who have commented on Matt 16:18 take a different reading from yours. I don't think apologetics are your forte, not that I'm much better

 

[Standing Up]

Except for saint Matthew he's a witness to saint Peter being the Rock upon whom the Lord Jesus Christ will build his church. Your post keeps leaving out the bible. That makes me suspicious of your post's conclusions.

I've quoted the bible numerous times. Christ is the Rock (1 Cor. 10:4). 1 Peter 2:3 calls Christ the rock.

Again no one understood RC's much later interpretation of Mt, like RC reinterprets the verse as c200ad. No one, not Mt, not Peter, not Paul, not John, not Christ.

 

[Meowzltov]

I don't think apologetics are your forte, not that I'm much better

LOL All we can do is practice, practice, practice.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I've quoted the bible numerous times. Christ is the Rock (1 Cor. 10:4). 1 Peter 2:3 calls Christ the rock.

Again no one understood RC's much later interpretation of Mt, like RC reinterprets the verse as c200ad. No one, not Mt, not Peter, not Paul, not John, not Christ.

Well, there it is again in your post. Unsubstantiated claims and a highly biased (dare one say personal?) interpretation of Matthew 16:18. It makes one feel like saying "balderdash".