Was Peter thr Rock that the Church was built upon?

tom55 said:

I am offended.

To call what the RCC teaches "BS" is inflammatory and hateful. To say "adult up bud" is condescending and belittling to me.

Are you saying that the historical writings of the Church Fathers and the scholarly studies of a well respected Christian historian is a distraction? That is not a very good defense of your position. Your position lacks facts.

So I ask you again: Are DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH, Ireneaus and Tertullian liars?

Click to expand...

First off... If you are offended its because you don't have great peace and you don't love hid law. I quoted you that verse.

Next, you fail to understand context. Your little fit about my use of initials for what you believe to be profanity is the distraction -- not any historical writings. Just another example of you spin tactics: making something out of nothing.

As for those historical folks. Let me put it this way. All of them were born at least a half century after the time of Peter and Paul. And if they contradict what the Bible says... Yes. They are liars and if you want to believe them over the Bible I will say it is wrong.

The Bible says Paul was sent to Rome. The Bible says Paul was sent to the gentiles and Peter to the Jews. Are you calling Jesus and Paul liars?

We've been through this before Tom. There is very scant Biblical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome to start with and there is Biblical evidence that states he never was anything close to the bishop of Rome.

FHII said:

First off... If you are offended its because you don't have great peace and you don't love hid law. I quoted you that verse.

Next, you fail to understand context. Your little fit about my use of initials for what you believe to be profanity is the distraction -- not any historical writings. Just another example of you spin tactics: making something out of nothing.

As for those historical folks. Let me put it this way. All of them were born at least a half century after the time of Peter and Paul. And if they contradict what the Bible says... Yes. They are liars and if you want to believe them over the Bible I will say it is wrong.

The Bible says Paul was sent to Rome. The Bible says Paul was sent to the gentiles and Peter to the Jews. Are you calling Jesus and Paul liars?

We've been through this before Tom. There is very scant Biblical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome to start with and there is Biblical evidence that states he never was anything close to the bishop of Rome.

Click to expand...

Thank you for TELLING me I don't have the right to be offended and then use scripture to make yourself feel better about it. How sad.

What I believe about the initials you used and what you meant are two different things. You still haven't told me what the initials stand for. Are you to embarrassed to write it? If so, then you probably should not have written it and you should probably apologize.

What proof do you have that they are lying about Peter being in Rome? Why would they lie about Peter being in Rome?

I never called Jesus and Paul liars. Just because they don't say that he went to Rome doesn't me he didn't go to Rome. There are lots of places they went and lots of things they did that are not recorded in scripture. Where in scripture does it say that everything we need to know about Peter and Paul can be found in scripture?????

I guess since you are throwing out 1 Pet. 5:13 as biblical evidence of Peter being in Rome then you are right....Congratulations.....there is no biblical evidence.

But if you, like all legitimate bible scholars do, include 1 Peter which is backed up with other historical writings which is backed up with archeological evidence then you would come to the same conclusion that scholars have come to: Peter was in FACT in Rome.

Where did Peter die?

tom55 said:

Thank you for TELLING me I don't have the right to be offended and then use scripture to make yourself feel better about it. How sad.

What I believe about the initials you used and what you meant are two different things. You still haven't told me what the initials stand for. Are you to embarrassed to write it? If so, then you probably should not have written it and you should probably apologize.

What proof do you have that they are lying about Peter being in Rome? Why would they lie about Peter being in Rome?

I never called Jesus and Paul liars. Just because they don't say that he went to Rome doesn't me he didn't go to Rome. There are lots of places they went and lots of things they did that are not recorded in scripture. Where in scripture does it say that everything we need to know about Peter and Paul can be found in scripture?????

I guess since you are throwing out 1 Pet. 5:13 as biblical evidence of Peter being in Rome then you are right....Congratulations.....there is no biblical evidence.

But if you, like all legitimate bible scholars do, include 1 Peter which is backed up with other historical writings which is backed up with archeological evidence then you would come to the same conclusion that scholars have come to: Peter was in FACT in Rome.

Where did Peter die?

Click to expand...

Basically you just replied to a bunch of things I never said. Wanna try again?

FHII said:

Basically you just replied to a bunch of things I never said. Wanna try again?

Click to expand...

You still haven't told me what the initials stand for. Are you to embarrassed to write it? :wub:

Things you never said????

QUOTE FROM YOU: They are liars and if you want to believe them over the Bible I will say it is wrong.

You didn't write that??? Was your account hacked??? <_<

So now, please answer the question: What proof do you have that they are lying about Peter being in Rome? Why would they lie about Peter being in Rome?

Where did Peter die?

Where in scripture does it say that everything we need to know about Peter and Paul can be found in scripture?????

I say this with love and kindness, but many, many peoples of the world do not know how to read or understand the Bible, even those who profess to be Christians. They read and critique scriptures like it is an ordinary instead of a Holy and Spiritual Book thereby making assumptions as their conclusions rather than believing and obeying that the Bible is written by God and therefore trustworthy.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

1Co 2:13-14
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I believe all of you (including the scholars mentioned), have gone down the wrong path by not adhering to the ominous principles set forth above. One of the many reasons I like the KJV is that the Strong’s and Young’s Literal Concordances were written in support of the Hebrew and Greek texts.

When John the Baptist announced Jesus, “Behold Jesus the man who takes away the sins of the world.” I mean this is how I would have announced Jesus. But John didn’t. He said, “Behold the Lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world.”


Now, we know Jesus is not an animal. So we search the scriptures what is meant by the word “Lamb.” Lo and behold, we find that animals were used as sacrifice by the Jews in the Old Testament to atone for their sins We see therefore spiritually, that Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice for the atonement of man’s sins.

Likewise, when we read the phrase, “I will build my Church upon this rock” in Mt. 16:18 was Jesus truly pointing a finger at Peter or to Himself? The RCC would like to believe the finger was pointing to Peter because they believed Peter was their first pope who had authority as a apostle, and therefore, they believe they are the Church. Think about this, will God truly build His Church and the gates of hell will not prevail, upon a sinful man? I don’t think so!

Like the Bereans, we search the scriptures for the meaning of the word “rock” as we did with the word “lamb.” God has not disappointed for we read:

De 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

2Sa 22:2-3
And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer;
3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.

Ps 18:31
For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?

Ps 89:26
He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.

Ps 95:1
O come, let us sing unto the LORD: let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation.


There are many, many more such like scriptures but the above will suffice.

So by comparing scriptures with scriptures we can see truths by the guidance of the Holy Spirit provided our conclusions are in harmony with all scriptures presented.

God has given us the methodology by which we can understand the deeper meaning of scriptures which I’ve alluded to already at the beginning of this post. The greatest import in understanding scriptures is the spiritual element that the Gospel must be seen in whatever verse or doctrine we are looking at as seen in the example of the words “lamb” and “rock” above.


To God Be The Glory scriptures

tom55 said:

You still haven't told me what the initials stand for. Are you to embarrassed to write it? :wub:

Click to expand...

This may be Wednesday Bingo night for Catholics... But I ain't playing your games.

tom55 said:

Things you never said????

QUOTE FROM YOU: They are liars and if you want to believe them over the Bible I will say it is wrong.

You didn't write that??? Was your account hacked??? <_<

Click to expand...

This is what I said:

"As for those historical folks. Let me put it this way. All of them were born at least a half century after the time of Peter and Paul. And if they contradict what the Bible says... Yes. They are liars and if you want to believe them over the Bible I will say it is wrong."

In context, that's a lot different than what you are insinuating, Isn't it? I am saying if they contradict the Bible and they are lying. I say "if" because I haven't read them and all I am going on is what you say they said. Frankly, I don't have a whole lot of confidence in you to get a quote right!

Now, I have quotes from the Bible that say Paul -- not Peter -- was sent to the Romans. I have quotes from the Bible that the Church is built on the Apostles and Prophets -- not Peter alone. If all your Church leaders disagree with that, then THEY are wrong and Paul and Jesus are right!

tom55 said:

So now, please answer the question: What proof do you have that they are lying about Peter being in Rome? Why would they lie about Peter being in Rome?

Click to expand...

Huh? When did I say Peter wasn't in Rome? Once again you are replying to something I did not say. I said Peter was never sent to Rome. Do you understand the difference between being IN Rome and being SENT to Rome [in Context: by Jesus to preach]?

tom55 said:

So now, please answer the question: What proof do you have that they are lying about Peter being in Rome? Why would they lie about Peter being in Rome?

Click to expand...

Huh? When did I say Peter wasn't in Rome? Once again you are replying to something I did not say. I said Peter was never sent to Rome. Do you understand the difference between being IN Rome and being SENT to Rome [in Context: by Jesus to preach]?

tom55 said:

So now, please answer the question: What proof do you have that they are lying about Peter being in Rome? Why would they lie about Peter being in Rome?

Click to expand...

Huh? When did I say Peter wasn't in Rome? Once again you are replying to something I did not say. I said Peter was never sent to Rome. Do you understand the difference between being IN Rome and being SENT to Rome [in Context: by Jesus to preach]?

tom55 said:

Where in scripture does it say that everything we need to know about Peter and Paul can be found in scripture?????

Click to expand...

Typical Catholic deflection tactic. Catholics HAVE to rely on this because so much of what they teach is not in the Bible. I DO HAVE scripture that says Paul was sent to Rome, and to the Gentiles and Peter was sent to the Jews. Yea... THAT is in there.

Here's some more stuff you said I said, but I didn't say:

tom55 said:

I guess since you are throwing out 1 Pet. 5:13 as biblical evidence of Peter being in Rome then you are right....Congratulations.....there is no biblical evidence.

Click to expand...

Yea... I never said there was no Biblical evidence, did I? Why don't you go on a hunt and see where I said that there was no Biblical evidence?

tom55 said:

You still haven't told me what the initials stand for. Are you to embarrassed to write it? :wub:

Things you never said????

QUOTE FROM YOU: They are liars and if you want to believe them over the Bible I will say it is wrong.

You didn't write that??? Was your account hacked??? <_<

So now, please answer the question: What proof do you have that they are lying about Peter being in Rome? Why would they lie about Peter being in Rome?

Where did Peter die?

Where in scripture does it say that everything we need to know about Peter and Paul can be found in scripture?????

Click to expand...

FHII said:

This may be Wednesday Bingo night for Catholics... But I ain't playing your games.

Click to expand...

If you wish to keep FHII an unknown nick, that's fine by me.

This is what I said. "As for those historical folks. Let me put it this way. All of them were born at least a half century after the time of Peter and Paul. And if they contradict what the Bible says... Yes. They are liars and if you want to believe them over the Bible I will say it is wrong.

Click to expand...

The problem with this statement is there was no Bible during this time period.

In context, that's a lot different than what you are insinuating, Isn't it? I am saying if they contradict the Bible and they are lying. I say "if" because I haven't read them and all I am going on is what you say they said. Frankly, I don't have a whole lot of confidence in you to get a quote right!

Now, I have quotes from the Bible that say Paul -- not Peter -- was sent to the Romans. I have quotes from the Bible that the Church is built on the Apostles and Prophets -- not Peter alone. If all your Church leaders disagree with that, then THEY are wrong and Paul and Jesus are right!

Click to expand...

What makes this statement so absurd is that Paul was always subject to the Church.

Huh? When did I say Peter wasn't in Rome? Once again you are replying to something I did not say. I said Peter was never sent to Rome. Do you understand the difference between being IN Rome and being SENT to Rome [in Context: by Jesus to preach]?

Click to expand...

Peter could have been sent by the Holy Spirit to Paris, then we would be called Parisean Catholics. It makes no difference to Catholics where he ended up. It has no bearing on his primacy. But Paris is not what God wanted. Who do you think "sent" Peter such a dangerous place liked Rome?

Huh? When did I say Peter wasn't in Rome? Once again you are replying to something I did not say. I said Peter was never sent to Rome.Do you understand the difference between being IN Rome and being SENT to Rome [in Context: by Jesus to preach]?

Click to expand...

In Scripture, generally, the one who does the sending has greater authority than the one being sent. I said Paul was subject to the Church. Here's proof::
In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf.9:17). Who told Paul to do what? Did Jesus appear a second time?
He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18),
and fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2,9).
He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4), which was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27).
Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).
Acts 15:2 states: “. . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.”
The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas “being sent on their way by the church.”
Paul did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council (where he played no huge role),
and Paul and Barnabas were sent off, or commissioned by the council (15:22-27), and shared its binding teachings in their missionary journeys: “. . . delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).
The Jerusalem Council certainly regarded its teachings as infallible, and guided by the Holy Spirit Himself. The records we have of it don’t even record much discussion about biblical prooftexts, and the main issue was circumcision (where there is a lot of Scripture to draw from). Paul accepted its authority and proclaimed its teachings (Acts 16:4).

The argument that Paul was independent from the institutional Church always fails as unbiblical.

Huh? When did I say Peter wasn't in Rome? Once again you are replying to something I did not say. I said Peter was never sent to Rome. Do you understand the difference between being IN Rome and being SENT to Ro
me [in Context: by Jesus to preach]?

Click to expand...

There would be no proof text for Peter being sent to Rome since he has primacy among the Apostles, so for it to be recorded of him sending himself would be silly.

Typical Catholic deflection tactic. Catholics HAVE to rely on this because so much of what they teach is not in the Bible. I DO HAVE scripture that says Paul was sent to Rome, and to the Gentiles and Peter was sent to the Jews. Yea... THAT is in there.

Click to expand...

Typical Protestant deflection tactic: if any belief, devotion, or doctrine is not explicitly found in scripture, it cannot be trusted. The problem with this approach is that it is not in the Bible. It is a man made tradition. EVERYTHING that Catholicism teaches is directly or indirectly from the Bible. What you mean is the false Protestant caricatures that you THINK Catholicism teaches.

I see you are big on "biblical evidence". Show me "biblical evidence" that lists 27 books of the NT that are found in the NT and maybe we can have a discussion.

Kepha31,

Smile. Here's a nice pat on your head. That's all you get.

Folks,

I am going to do my very best to live up to what I am about to say.

I am bowing out of this conversation.

Catholics use Mat 16 to try to state a legitimate their claim as the only true Church. If not that, they will state they are at least thw mother church or the "head".

The problem is that it is a long and winding road they take. And much of it is untrue.

I have documented such. And there have been those who have responded....


I am goingto be as nice as I can. Those that have responded have offered insufficient Biblical support for their arguements, have been undiectional in their rebuttals, and seem more intersted in countering questions insteaf of answering them.

I am also displeased that some of them would rather dwell on my use of the initials "BS" than actually addreaing charges. Sure... Maybe I shouldn't have.... But adults get over it and don't let it bother them....

Or so I would think.

Bottom line.... Sorry Catholics. I am done with you. I am not worried because no one here is buying your
propganda anyway.

We both win.... You get to spout your Mary worshipping, Peter linaging propanda and I get to sit back amd laugh at it.

Have a day...

FHII said:

Folks,

I am going to do my very best to live up to what I am about to say.

I am bowing out of this conversation.

Catholics use Mat 16 to try to state a legitimate their claim as the only true Church. If not that, they will state they are at least thw mother church or the "head".

Click to expand...

There is no one verse. We have all of Scripture, Tradition, (which is never understood by anti-Catholics) and the Magisterium which make up the BIBLICAL rule of faith, all working in harmony, plus the writings of the Early Church Fathers which you don't like because none of them were Protestants, plus the councils that clarified the Trinity in the face of heretics.
The problem is that it is a long and winding road they take. And much of it is untrue.

I have documented such. And there have been those who have responded....


I am goingto be as nice as I can

Click to expand...

.




"Mary worship" is not nice, it's ignorant bigotry and highly insulting.

Those that have responded have offered insufficient Biblical support for their arguements, have been undiectional in their rebuttals, and seem more intersted in countering questions insteaf of answering them.

Click to expand...

You run when I ask questions.

I am also displeased that some of them would rather dwell on my use of the initials "BS" than actually addreaing charges. Sure... Maybe I shouldn't have.... But adults get over it and don't let it bother them....

Or so I would think.

Bottom line.... Sorry Catholics. I am done with you. I am not worried because no one here is buying your
propaganda anyway.

Click to expand...

Facts is not propaganda.

We both win.... You get to spout your Mary worshipping, Peter linaging propanda and I get to sit back amd laugh at it.

Have a day...


What you mean is the false Protestant caricatures that you THINK Catholicism teaches. Maybe you can name another Apostle other than Simon bar Jonah that Jesus changed his name.
Throwing in the false charge of "Mary worship" is a sure sign of concession. You lost.

tom55 said:

Denominational Posts – Excessive posts either attempting to either push a single denomination (or group) or attacking another denomination are included in this rule.

When you write "More BS from VatiSPIN City." that sounds to me like you are attacking the RCC.

Was that your intent or would you like to clarify?

Click to expand...

I agree, FHII should have chose more wisely on his wording, however, tom55, this particular part of your post above...... You have been in clear violation of this more times than there are stars in the sky. So dont for one second think you are clean of this one. Check that log in your eye, buddy.

Jun2u said:

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Click to expand...

You left out verses 14-16:

[14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, (Tradition)
knowing from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
[15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (Scriptures)
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Note verse 14-15. It admonishes Timothy to do three things:
1) Remember what you have learned and firmly believed (Tradition)
2) Know from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
3) Know you have the Scriptures

The Bible on St. Paul's list comes in third, not first. He actually gives here the traditional Catholic teaching on the three sources of sound teaching.
In verse 15 he goes into an excursus on the Bible. This brief excursus emphasizes the value of the Bible and recommends a fourfold method of exegesis. This verse was used in the pre-Reformation Church as a proof text for the Quadriga which was the standard Catholic approach to the Bible. The Quadriga method used the following four categories:

• Literal/Literary (teaching) - the text as it is written
• Analogical (reproof) - matters of faith
• Anagogical (correction) - matters of hope/prophecy
• Moral (training in righteousness) - matters of charity

The analogical, anagogical and moral senses of the Bible were known collectively as the spiritual senses.
The 'reformers' rejected the BIBLICAL fourfold method of exegesis in favor of a more literal approach, and ignored 2 Tim 3:16.The analogical, anagogical and moral senses of the Bible were known collectively as the spiritual senses.
The 'reformers' rejected the BIBLICAL fourfold method of exegesis in favor of a more literal approach, and ignored 2 Tim 3:16.


1Co 2:13-14
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Click to expand...

Agreed. 2 Cor 3:5 Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, 6 who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

I believe all of you (including the scholars mentioned), have gone down the wrong path by not adhering to the ominous principles set forth above. One of the many reasons I like the KJV is that the Strong’s and Young’s Literal Concordances were written in support of the Hebrew and Greek texts.

Click to expand...

Jesus didn't speak Greek to Peter. He spoke Aramaic. "Kepha" has no constructive pronouns. The grammatical problem presented itself when Matthew translated from the Aramaic to the Greek. Jesus also used the Aramaic name in John 1:14, and Paul used the Aramaic name 6 times out of 9 when addressing Greek speaking communities. In English, "You are Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my Church." The Aramaic does not have complicated constructive pronouns as does the Greek.

When John the Baptist announced Jesus, “Behold Jesus the man who takes away the sins of the world.” I mean this is how I would have announced Jesus. But John didn’t. He said, “Behold the Lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world.”


Now, we know Jesus is not an animal. So we search the scriptures what is meant by the word “Lamb.” Lo and behold, we find that animals were used as sacrifice by the Jews in the Old Testament to atone for their sins We see therefore spiritually, that Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice for the atonement of man’s sins.

Click to expand...

Jesus has a physical body.

Likewise, when we read the phrase, “I will build my Church upon this rock” in Mt. 16:18 was Jesus truly pointing a finger at Peter or to Himself? The RCC would like to believe the finger was pointing to Peter because they believed Peter was their first pope who had authority as a apostle, and therefore, they believe they are the Church. Think about this, will God truly build His Church and the gates of hell will not prevail, upon a sinful man? I don’t think so!

Click to expand...

Peter's sinfulness had nothing to do with bearing the keys of the kingdom. You confuse impeccability with infallibility. Furthermore, the power to bind and loose has nothing to do with holiness. Yet it demands infallibility, a term Protestants can't seem to understand.

the Bereans, we search the scriptures for the meaning of the word “rock” as we did with the word “lamb.” God has not disappointed for we read:

De 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

2Sa 22:2-3
And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer;
3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.

Ps 18:31
For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?

Ps 89:26
He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.

Ps 95:1
O come, let us sing unto the LORD: let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation.

There are many, many more such like scriptures but the above will suffice. So by comparing scriptures with scriptures we can see truths by the guidance of the Holy Spirit provided our conclusions are in harmony with all scriptures presented.

Click to expand...

2 Sam. 22:2-3, 32, 47; 23:3; Psalm 18:2,31,46; 19:4; 28:1; 42:9; 62:2,6,7; 89:26; 94:22; 144:1-2 - in these verses, God is also called "rock." Hence, from these verses, non-Catholics often argue that God, and not Peter, is the rock that Jesus is referring to in Matt. 16:18. This argument not only ignores the plain meaning of the applicable texts, but also assumes words used in Scripture can only have one meaning. This, of course, is not true. For example:

1 Cor. 3:11 - Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church.
Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock.
These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.

W.F. Albright (Protestant) and C.S. Mann
“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence…The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence.”
(The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

Craig L. Blomberg (Baptist)
"The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification"
[New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].

FHII said:

This may be Wednesday Bingo night for Catholics... But I ain't playing your games.

This is what I said:

"As for those historical folks. Let me put it this way. All of them were born at least a half century after the time of Peter and Paul. And if they contradict what the Bible says... Yes. They are liars and if you want to believe them over the Bible I will say it is wrong."

In context, that's a lot different than what you are insinuating, Isn't it? I am saying if they contradict the Bible and they are lying. I say "if" because I haven't read them and all I am going on is what you say they said. Frankly, I don't have a whole lot of confidence in you to get a quote right!

Now, I have quotes from the Bible that say Paul -- not Peter -- was sent to the Romans. I have quotes from the Bible that the Church is built on the Apostles and Prophets -- not Peter alone. If all your Church leaders disagree with that, then THEY are wrong and Paul and Jesus are right!


Huh? When did I say Peter wasn't in Rome? Once again you are replying to something I did not say. I said Peter was never sent to Rome. Do you understand the difference between being IN Rome and being SENT to Rome [in Context: by Jesus to preach]?

Typical Catholic deflection tactic. Catholics HAVE to rely on this because so much of what they teach is not in the Bible. I DO HAVE scripture that says Paul was sent to Rome, and to the Gentiles and Peter was sent to the Jews. Yea... THAT is in there.

Here's some more stuff you said I said, but I didn't say:

Yea... I never said there was no Biblical evidence, did I? Why don't you go on a hunt and see where I said that there was no Biblical evidence?

Click to expand...

You still haven't told me what the initials stand for. Are you to embarrassed to write it? If you are to embarrassed to say it you probably shouldn't have written it in the first place.

Not sure why you are saying you aren't playing MY game since you are the one who wrote it and now you won't own up to it. Only you can end this "game" that YOU started by answering the question. If you are too embarrassed to write out the words just tell me...I won't be mad at ya'
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]When referring to Dionysius of Corinth, Ireneaus and Tertullian you stated: "...if they contradict what the Bible says... Yes. They are liars and if you want to believe them over the Bible I will say it is wrong."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]When I suggested there is biblical evidence (1 Peter 5:13) for Peter being in Rome you stated: Yea... I never said there was no Biblical evidence, did I? Why don't you go on a hunt and see where I said that there was no Biblical evidence?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]You have also said: When did I say Peter wasn't in Rome? Once again you are replying to something I did not say. I said Peter was never sent to Rome. Do you understand the difference between being IN Rome and being SENT to Rome.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]You have also said: "Paul was sent to Rome. Not Peter. If Peter was in Rome,..."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Based on your previous comments you seem to be unsure or uncommitted to state for a fact that Peter was in Rome.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Based on all of the evidence I, Tom55, and the best scholars in the world believe Peter was in Rome. I have confidence in what I believe and can back it up with facts.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]

Jesus didn't speak Greek to Peter. He spoke Aramaic. "Kepha" has no constructive pronouns. The grammatical problem presented itself when Matthew translated from the Aramaic to the Greek.

Click to expand...

Well at least you can admit that Matthew presented a problem.

Jesus also used the Aramaic name in John 1:14, and Paul used the Aramaic name 6 times out of 9 when addressing Greek speaking communities. In English, "You are Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my Church." The Aramaic does not have complicated constructive pronouns as does the Greek.

Click to expand...

Thanks for restating what has been presented from the beginning. So your argument is to point out that Greek presents a problem that seems to be missing from the Aramaic. This doesn't solve the problem of why Matthew chose to present this problem, especially given that he didn't have to present this problem at all. He could have simply presented "this rock" in the masculine form. HE DIDN'T. The fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic doesn't even address the fact that Matthew could have written "this rock" in the masculine form to agree and EXPLICITLY refer to Peter.

Craig L. Blomberg (Baptist)
"The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly...etc.

Click to expand...

Almost certainly? LOL.

The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence.”

Click to expand...

And far more emphasis of his pre-eminence. Therefore we should all strive to emulate Peter's failures; we need to celebrate our own faults and foibles not to detract from our own pre-eminence, but to emphasize it. For it is of far less consequence.

shnarkle said:

And far more emphasis of his pre-eminence. Therefore we should all strive to emulate Peter's failures; we need to celebrate our own faults and foibles not to detract from our own pre-eminence, but to emphasize it. For it is of far less consequence.

Click to expand...

This is a gross misquote.

W.F. Albright (Protestant) and C.S. Mann
“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence…The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence.”

Do you always play this dirty? Or don't you understand the underlined?

Craig L. Blomberg (Baptist)

"The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly...etc.
Almost certainly? LOL

Click to expand...

All you’re doing is spouting your opinions, yet if someone cites a learned Protestant historian, you derisively dimiss it, as if you can learn nothing from even a Protestant scholar. In doing so, you cut off the limb you are sitting on. Why should anyone care about your opinions, either? But we all have a right to our opinions, and we ought to accept the opinions of scholars who devote themselves laboriously to learning about their fields. Therefore your opinions are meaningless.

n2thelight said:

Christ is the Rock not Peter,so therefore Peter cannot be the Rock of whom the Church is built... Bout to go to sleep now,will comment more later...

Click to expand...

The rock whom is commonly referred to as Jesus is in fact the corner stone rock. It even records that about himself in the gospels


Luk 20:17 And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?

Calling Jesus the rock itself is an inaccurate description of what and who he really was.

Click to expand...

I gues you never watched teh cartoons where they cut the branch and the tree falls over.

This is a gross misquote.

W.F. Albright (Protestant) and C.S. Mann
“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence…The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence.”

Do you always play this dirty? Or don't you understand the underlined?

Click to expand...

I'm pointing out how ridiculous this all is when the fact is that you have done nothing but ignore the only point this topic is about in the first place. The only salient fact that conclusively disproves that Peter is the rock is the grammar. My opinion has nothing to do with it. It is simply a grammatical fact which you think can be dismissed with opinions.

All you’re doing is spouting your opinions,

Click to expand...

No, I'm presenting a grammatical fact. You are presenting opinions which are patently ridiculous. I'm simply pointing out this fact as well. e.g. "Almost certainly...etc." LOL!