What is the rock being referred to in Matthew 16:18

[timothyu]

they developed the scriptural canon, they chose what books were in the New Testament,

Just humans using their power of self interest and self justification in forming yet another institution of man. Jesus gave us the Kingdom and man built their own. How is that different from the Adversary mimicking God?

 

[Albion]

Just humans using their power of self interest and self justification in forming yet another institution of man.

Which raises an interesting question that demands an answer. IF the Bible as we know it, allowing for the fact that there is a slight variance in the versions authorized in some church bodies, was/is nothing more than "just humans using their power of self-interest" what should take its place?

Something that each of us decides on instead? Or nothing that's considered to be divine revelation and, therefore, authoritative? Or maybe if we just throw in the word Kingdom everywhere, we will know everything that God intended for us to know about daily life, moral obligations, essential doctrines, and on and on?

 

[timothyu]

IF the Bible as we know it, allowing for the fact that there is a slight variance in the versions authorized in some church bodies, was/is nothing more than "just humans using their power of self-interest" what should take its place?

There are four canons. Closed minds pursue only that which fits a certain institution. It becomes political. Jesus didn't come to create a religion but promote a way of life and establish a Kingdom not of this world nor of it's own making.

 

[The Liturgist]

Just humans using their power of self interest and self justification in forming yet another institution of man. Jesus gave us the Kingdom and man built their own. How is that different from the Adversary mimicking God?

You’re (hopefully) thinking of the heretical forms of Christianity that appeared in the first four centuries, like Marcionism, Valentinism, the Ebionites, Manichaeanism and most importantly Arianism, which took over the ministries of the early church and with the backing of Constantius, the son and heir of Constantine, began a persecution of Christians.

Belief in the Nicene Creed and the church that produced it is normative Christianity and the Nicene Creed is our statement of faith on CF.com.

 

[Quintus]

Matthew 16 is poorly translated and causes much needless confusion. Peter (Petrus) is the Greek translation for Aramaic Kefe meaning a rock that curves over you, the sort of place you go to find shelter. It is used this way twice in the Septuagint. I call it a rock-shelter for want of a better English word.

Referring to Caesarea Philippi, it stands at a spur in the foot of the mountain where a grotto existed to the evil shepherd god Pan. In front of the grotto stood a temple dedicated to the God-Emperor of Rome to bring people to the grotto to sacrifice to Pan. This makes a visual parable for the disciples.

Christ (the true rock and the true shepherd) is the son of God (the mountain) and has a hole in his side (the grotto) where the roman soldier sticks in his javelin to prove he is dead (the sacrifice). The church that Christ builds stands there to bring people to shelter at the wounded side of Christ (salvation).

The church stands where Peter stands, at the wounded side of the Messiah. The translation should be ‘at the rock-shelter’ because it uses the Greek dative case. The 'house on the rock' elsewhere uses the accusative case which really does mean 'on top of'.

This clarity is hidden because of translation issues that date well back. It’s not a rock, it’s a rock shelter and describes Jesus' wounded side, his actual physical death. The church is built by Christ and, if we are permitted to assist in that building, then it is an amazing privilege.

 

[timothyu]

Belief in the Nicene Creed and the church that produced it is normative Christianity and the Nicene Creed is our statement of faith on CF.com.

Yes it is, a creed of a religion, but Jesus pursued a different venue.

 

[concretecamper]

Catholic Archbishop Kenrick of St Louis broke down his research of the Church Fathers as follows

1. "That St. Peter is the Rock" is taught by seventeen (17) Fathers
2. That the whole Apostolic College is the Rock, represented by Peter as its chief, is taught by eight (8) Church Fathers
3. That St. Peter's faith is the Rock, is taught by forty-four (44) church Fathers
4. That Christ is the Rock, is taught by sixteen Fathers (16)
5. That the rock is the whole body of the faithful, Archbp. Kendrick gives no figure.

fortunately, the Church doesnt teach by popular opinion, unlike soooooo many others.

 

[prodromos]

fortunately, the Church doesnt teach by popular opinion, unlike soooooo many others.

It was against the popular Catholic opinion that Archbishop Kenrick was arguing. Unfortunately his voice was drowned out and ultimately censored, and the Vatican Council added the novel teaching of Papal infallibility to Catholic doctrine.

 

[concretecamper]

It was against the popular Catholic opinion that Archbishop Kenrick was arguing

so

Unfortunately his voice was drowned out and ultimately censored, and the Vatican Council added the novel teaching of Papal infallibility to Catholic doctrine.

Christ protects His Bride

 

[prodromos]

Interesting. I had assumed position 1 and 2 were the Consensus Patrum, but clearly it is position 3, although I do wish you could link us to some data on which Father said what.

I haven't had time to read through this, I only just discovered it on the internet archive, but hopefully it might furnish enough details.
An inside view of the Vatican Council, in the speech of the Most Reverend Archbishop Kenrick of St. Louis : Kenrick, Peter Richard, Abp., 1806-1896 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[prodromos]

Christ protects His Bride

Which is why we don't have such novel doctrines in the Orthodox Church.

 

[The Liturgist]

I haven't had time to read through this, I only just discovered it on the internet archive, but hopefully it might furnish enough details.
An inside view of the Vatican Council, in the speech of the Most Reverend Archbishop Kenrick of St. Louis : Kenrick, Peter Richard, Abp., 1806-1896 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Thank you for that link. The Internet Archive has some really good material, particularly liturgical material, like Isabel Florence Hapgood’s pioneering translation of the Eastern Orthodox liturgy (following the Russian tradition).

 

[The Liturgist]

Which is why we don't have such novel doctrines in the Orthodox Church.

The greatest strength of the Orthodox Church is its resistance to change. Interestingly, at one time, before the Filioque Controversy, the Roman Church was known for being the most conservative and least amenable to change in Christendom, as an example, rejecting until at least Archbishop Gelasius, and probably until Pope St. Gregory Diologos, such liturgical innovations as the Greek-style antiphonal music first introduced by St. Ignatius of Antioch, and later introduced into the West by St. Ambrose of Milan.

The upshot of this conservatism is that of the heresies addressed by the seven ecumenical councils, only Monothelitism touched Rome, under the gross misrule of Pope Honorius I.

But by the 10th century, all this had ceased, and you had weirdness like the Cadaver Synod, the reintroduction of the Filioque, the constant infighting with Constantinople over the distribution of missionaries among the Slavs, a stagnant liturgy which failed to impress the ambassadors of St. Vladimir (had they attended a solemn Tridentine, Dominican, Carmelite, Bragan, Lyonaise, Sarum, Mozarabic or Ambrosian Mass following the rubrics of Pope Pius V, Cardinal Ximenez, or St. Carlos Borromeo, with the exquisite vestments, and the beautiful music prescribed by Pius X, history might have been different,* but by all accounts the Roman liturgy was in a bad state in the 10th and 11th centuries, the North African liturgy was gone due to Islamic persecution, and the splendid Gallican liturgy was being discontinued on an initiative that dated back to Charlemagne to get the entire Western Church to use only the Roman liturgical books, which of course never happened.

*The only Roman Rite liturgy to retain the sombre character which did once prevail throughout the Western Church is the Carthusian Mass, which reads a lot like the Dominican Mass, but uses music which is intentionally mournful and penitential in character.

 

[timothyu]

Christ protects His Bride

His bride is the New Jerusalem according to scripture

 

[The Liturgist]

His bride is the New Jerusalem according to scripture

That is quite incorrect; the Bride of Christ, and the Body of Christ, is the Church, and this is made clear in the Gospels themselves. Why else would Jesus refer to himself in the presence of His believers as the Bridegroom?

Please read some Patristic and early Protestant (Lutheran, Anglican, Calvinist and Methodist) scriptural commentary and try to avoid eisegesis. Because really the only way one could say the Bride of Christ is the New Jerusalem is through eisegetically reading Revelations, without reading it in the context of other Scripture, the Tradition of the Church, Reason, and the Experience of the Church (the Wesleyan Quadrilateral).

So read Athanasius, read John Chrysostom, read the commentaries of John Chrysostom, read Augustine, read Ambrose of Milan, read Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa, read Irenaeus, read John Damascene, and then read Martin Luther, John Wesley, and the great Anglican Archbishops Cranmer and Laud, and the Institutes of John Calvin, and id you have time, the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, and read multiple study Bibles with commentary from different denominations (the reformed KJV Study Bible, a Catholic study Bible, the Oxford RSV study Bible, the Lutheran Study Bible and the Orthodox Study Bible), and then once you have studied those, read a modern English Bible, such as the old version of the NIV before it was damaged by a liberal agenda, and try to read the verses in the context of the entire Bible, guided by Tradition, Reason and Experience.

 

[timothyu]

That is quite incorrect; the Bride of Christ, and the Body of Christ, is the Church, and this is made clear in the Gospels themselves. Why else would Jesus refer to himself in the presence of His believers as the Bridegroom?

Rev 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

We are the second batch of guests at the wedding feast, the first refusing to come. as told by Jesus.
It is rather arrogant of man to think themselves more worthy than the Kingdom Jesus died for.

 

[The Liturgist]

Rev 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

We are the second batch of guests at the wedding feast, the first refusing to come. as told by Jesus.
It is rather arrogant of man to think themselves more worthy than the Kingdom Jesus died for.

Jesus Christ did die for man, however; it is because we were unworthy he sacrificed Himself as a ransom for many. Have you not read where he said “Drink this all of you; this is my blood, the blood of the New Covenant, shed for you and for many for the remission of sins.”

If we followed your line of reasoning, we could say it was arrogant of the sinners and tax collectors to dine with Jesus, when there were learned priests, scribes and Jewish nobility eager to recline with him for supper. But unless your definition of the Kingdom of God is something other than obvious, you have it literally backwards.

 

[timothyu]

But unless your definition of the Kingdom of God is something other than obvious, you have it literally backwards.

Yet God says it is mankind that has it backwards.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yet God says it is mankind that has it backwards.

But that contradicts what Jesus said at the Last Supper. He did not say “This is my blood of the new covenant, shed for the Kingdom of God,” but “This my blood of the new covenant, shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins.”

 

[timothyu]

But that contradicts what Jesus said at the Last Supper. He did not say “This is my blood of the new covenant, shed for the Kingdom of God,” but “This my blood of the new covenant, shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins.”

No Kingdom, no release.