Was Peter thr Rock that the Church was built upon?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Status
Not open for further replies.

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
This is a gross misquote.
I didn't misquote anything. In fact, I included the quote exactly. Here's what I posted:



Quote
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.”

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.


It's all pure nonsense, and you know it. Here's another one: Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence, and far less emphasis of his pre-eminence. Therefore we should all strive to play our role as lesser figures so Peter's pre-eminence can be emphasized. We should all emphasize Peter's failures and vacillations to emphasize his pre-eminence. Sounds great! Peter was a coward and a flake, we can only hope to be as big a flake and coward as he was, but even if we were to surpass him in cowardice and denial of Christ, this would only serve to spotlight the fact that it makes no difference anyways. There is no consequence to our faults and failures for we are simply lesser figures. In fact, if it were possible for a lesser figure than Peter to be a true witness for Christ, Peter's failures would eclipse their righteous martyrdom.

Yeah, we can all see that makes so much sense.
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
shnarkle said:
I didn't misquote anything. In fact, I included the quote exactly. Here's what I posted:



Quote
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.”

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.


It's all pure nonsense, and you know it. Here's another one: Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence, and far less emphasis of his pre-eminence. Therefore we should all strive to play our role as lesser figures so Peter's pre-eminence can be emphasized. We should all emphasize Peter's failures and vacillations to emphasize his pre-eminence. Sounds great! Peter was a coward and a flake, we can only hope to be as big a flake and coward as he was, but even if we were to surpass him in cowardice and denial of Christ, this would only serve to spotlight the fact that it makes no difference anyways. There is no consequence to our faults and failures for we are simply lesser figures. In fact, if it were possible for a lesser figure than Peter to be a true witness for Christ, Peter's failures would eclipse their righteous martyrdom.

Yeah, we can all see that makes so much sense.
I no longer wish to argue about whether Peter was the first pPope and if we should all be Catholic. But there are some interesting points in this post about Peter.

I truly believe he was a great man! His faults were many. In fact, for a guy with they keys to heaven and a decree that whatsoever he loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven.... Its interesting to note he sure did mess up alot!

He messed up in the flesh. His spirit and his will according to God prevailed.
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
for a guy with they keys to heaven and a decree that whatsoever he loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven....
That's not what the text indicates. Most translations get it wrong as well. Within the future periphrastic it is in the past perfect preterit. The most accurate way to translate it would be "what is loosed in heaven will be loosed on earth, and what is retained in heaven will be retained on earth" It is literally "having been bound", and "having been loosed".

Christ is not granting Peter or anyone the ability to do what they please with celestial approval. This would be to grant something to Peter which Christ Himself didn't have. Christ is simply showing Peter that he will be able to follow the divine pattern, e.g. "on earth as it is in heaven". Jesus only did what he saw the Father doing, he only said what was given to him from the Father to say.
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
shnarkle said:
That's not what the text indicates. Most translations get it wrong as well. Within the future periphrastic it is in the past perfect preterit. The most accurate way to translate it would be "what is loosed in heaven will be loosed on earth, and what is retained in heaven will be retained on earth" It is literally "having been bound", and "having been loosed".

Christ is not granting Peter or anyone the ability to do what they please with celestial approval. This would be to grant something to Peter which Christ Himself didn't have. Christ is simply showing Peter that he will be able to follow the divine pattern, e.g. "on earth as it is in heaven". Jesus only did what he saw the Father doing, he only said what was given to him from the Father to say.

That is pretty much what I was getting at. Everything Peter wilked on earth or on the flesh was not what came to pass. When Peter figured out God's will... Then it did.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
FHII said:
That is pretty much what I was getting at. Everything Peter wilked on earth or on the flesh was not what came to pass. When Peter figured out God's will... Then it did.
Care to cite your "correct" translation that reverses earth and heaven, or did you make that up?
 

Jun2u

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2014
1,083
362
83
75
Southern CA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
kepha31 said:
Care to cite your "correct" translation that reverses earth and heaven, or did you make that up?
Mt 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The key (pardon the pun) words above are “bind” and “loose.” The correct Greek translation is: “whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall having been bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall having been loosed in heaven.

The prior action you see, is in heaven.


To God Be The Glory
 

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
Born_Again said:
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.
Since I have allegedly violated CyB rules in the past it is ok for someone else to violate them in a different post on a different topic and use foul language to boot? Is that in CyB's rule book also? An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth?

He "Should have chose more wisely on his wording?" We all know what the acronym for BS stands for. Why is ok to use acronyms in the place of the real word when we all know that the acronym used is considered and insult? It's ok to insult someone as long as you use an acronym? Can you show me in CyB's rules where it says it's ok to use foul language/cuss words and insult someone's belief as long as you use it in an acronym?

FHII wrote: "More BS from VatiSPIN City. Jesus did not say Peter was the rock on whom he built his Church."

Please answer me this question: There are Protestant Churches that teach the EXACT same thing that he called a BS teaching of the RCC. Doesn't that mean the BS is coming from Protestants also? The Catholic Church is not the only Church that teaches Peter was the Rock that he built his church on.

What log do I need to check? Quote me one time I had a log in my eye and I was pointing out the sliver in someone else's eye.
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Please answer me this question: There are Protestant Churches that teach the EXACT same thing that he called a BS teaching of the RCC. Doesn't that mean the BS is coming from Protestants also? The Catholic Church is not the only Church that teaches Peter was the Rock that he built his church on.
And they too are wrong all teaching mens doctrines, because they too have no revelation that Jesus was speaking of. Its all about context that people keep harping on about. As i said before, mother should be proud,.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Jun2u said:
Mt 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The key (pardon the pun) words above are “bind” and “loose.” The correct Greek translation is: “whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall having been bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall having been loosed in heaven.

The prior action you see, is in heaven.


To God Be The Glory
That is not what the Greek says.

Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
1325 [e] dōsō δώσω I will give V-FIA-1S
4771 [e] soi σοι to you PPro-D2S
3588 [e] tas τὰς the Art-AFP
2807 [e] kleidas κλεῖδας keys N-AFP
3588 [e] tēs τῆς of the Art-GFS
932 [e] basileias βασιλείας kingdom N-GFS
3588 [e] tōn τῶν of the Art-GMP
3772 [e] ouranōn οὐρανῶν, heavens; N-GMP
2532 [e] kai καὶ and Conj
3739 [e] ho ὃ whatever RelPro-ANS
1437 [e] ean ἐὰν if Conj
1210 [e] dēsēs δήσῃς you might bind V-ASA-2S
1909 [e] epi ἐπὶ on Prep
3588 [e] tēs τῆς the Art-GFS
1093 [e] gēs γῆς earth, N-GFS
1510 [e] estai ἔσται will be V-FIM-3S
1210 [e] dedemenon δεδεμένον bound V-RPM/P-NNS
1722 [e] en ἐν in Prep
3588 [e] tois τοῖς the Art-DMP
3772 [e] ouranois οὐρανοῖς, heavens; N-DMP
2532 [e] kai καὶ and Conj
3739 [e] ho ὃ whatever RelPro-ANS
1437 [e] ean ἐὰν if Conj
3089 [e] lysēs λύσῃς you might loose V-ASA-2S
1909 [e] epi ἐπὶ on Prep
3588 [e] tēs τῆς the Art-GFS
1093 [e] gēs γῆς earth, N-GFS
1510 [e] estai ἔσται will be V-FIM-3S
3089 [e] lelymenon λελυμένον loosed V-RPM/P-NNS
1722 [e] en ἐν in Prep
3588 [e] tois τοῖς the Art-DMP
3772 [e] ouranois οὐρανοῖς. heavens. N-DMP

Greek Texts
Nestle GNT 1904
δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

Westcott and Hort 1881
δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]
δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Καὶ δώσω σοὶ τὰς κλεῖς τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν· καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς· καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

Greek Orthodox Church 1904
καὶ δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖς τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

The prior action is Peter doing the binding. That much is obvious. What do you think "whatsoever" means? You are trying to justify your rebellion against the authority Jesus gave to Peter with absurd Bible twisting. Switching heaven with earth is unbiblical.

"Binding and loosing" is a rabbinical term, and everyone there knew what it meant.
Matt. 16:19 - Jesus gives Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven." While most Protestants argue that the kingdom of heaven Jesus was talking about is the eternal state of glory (as if Peter is up in heaven letting people in), the kingdom of heaven Jesus is speaking of actually refers to the Church on earth. In using the term "keys," Jesus was referencing Isaiah 22 (which is the only place in the Bible where keys are used in the context of a kingdom).

Isaiah 22:22 - in the old Davidic kingdom, there were royal ministers who conducted the liturgical worship and bound the people in teaching and doctrine. But there was also a Prime Minister or chief steward of the kingdom who held the keys. Jesus gives Peter these keys to His earthly kingdom, the Church. This representative has decision-making authority over the people - when he shuts, no one opens. See also Job 12:14.

Rev. 1:18; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1 - Jesus' "keys" undeniably represent authority. By using the word "keys," Jesus gives Peter authority on earth over the new Davidic kingdom, and this was not seriously questioned by anyone until the Protestant reformation 1,500 years later after Peter’s investiture. (a kinda late innovation, dontcha think?)

Matt. 16:19 - whatever Peter binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven / when the Prime Minister to the King opens, no one shuts. This "binding and loosing" authority allows the keeper of the keys to establish "halakah," or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves.

Matt. 23:2-4 - the "binding and loosing" terminology used by Jesus was understood by the Jewish people. For example, Jesus said that the Pharisees "bind" heavy burdens but won't move ("loose") them with their fingers. Peter and the apostles have the new binding and loosing authority over the Church of the New Covenant.

Matt. 13:24-52 -Jesus comparing the kingdom of heaven to a field, a mustard seed, leaven, and a net demonstrate that the kingdom Jesus is talking about is the universal Church on earth, not the eternal state of glory. Therefore, the keys to the "kingdom of heaven" refers to the authority over the earthly Church.

I suggest you look up some Jewish sources and find out what "binding and loosing" meant to the people who originally used the term, before Jesus elevated it to new heights with Peter.

Finally, with Peter doing the binding (first on earth) that is then bound in heaven, (as shown in the original Greek) can heaven bind an error?

No, it's impossible. What is bound on earth demands infallibility, which is inconceivable to sola scripturist Protestants.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tom55

VictoryinJesus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2017
9,581
7,857
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The rock is found in “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”

The church is built on Christ who demonstrated and stated repeatedly He only did what He saw the Father in Heaven do. It is not our faith or the amount of it that has any ability that brings about "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

(John 11: 33-36) “When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled, And said, Where have ye laid him? They said unto him, Lord, come and see. Jesus wept. Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him! And some of them said, Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died? Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.”

Jesus wept because of their lack of faith, not out of doubt in the resurrection of Lazarus.

(John 11: 40) “Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest, thou shouldest see the glory of God?”

The name Lazarus means “God is my help” and Lazarus was raised; not by the faith of loved ones but from above. It is interesting Jesus gives a command to “Loose him, and let him go.”

“Oh Lord, truly I am thy servant; I am thy servant, and the son of thine handmaid: thou hast loosed my bonds.” Psalm 116:16

“And straightway his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed, and he spake” Mark 7:53

“And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity.” Luke 13:12

“The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering?” Luke 13:15

Jesus only did what He saw the Father in heaven do.

“God is my help”

God provides and we, the church, are to distribute. Even Peter being able to reply and give the right answer came from above. Jesus taught this “God is my help” to His disciples throughout the new testament: to provide meat (fish and the loaves of bread) provision came from above and they delivered. Jesus was constantly giving instruction and command toward the disciples pertaining to distributing what comes from above. Does the Spirit of God communicate with us today and prompt us? (John 16: 12-15)

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.”

I ask you to consider what David, Moses, Elias, and the Apostles have that was so different? Relationship? The church is called into a relationship with God through the Son. How best do you know someone? Through shared suffering. Pride is from Satan. If pride says to us that our faith can deliver a person from bondage, then our belief still rests in our own ability and not God's alone. The absence of pride is terrifying weakness and the stripping away of our own earthly abilities. All provision comes from above, directly from the Father. We are slaves to the promptings of the Spirit to distribute, to loose and bind that which we should receive as instruction from above, but the deliverance and breaking of bondage only "comes from above". How can we hear, and do this if we are not walking in the spirit rather than the flesh?

Command of Jesus to the disciples concerning the colt:

“And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? Thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him.” Luke 19: 31

Does it sound like a stretch to assume a hidden command here pertaining to the ass and colt? About loosening? Scripture often uses animals: ox, lion, sheep, goats...

“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon as ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.” Zechariah 9: 9

“Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them, And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.” Matthew 21:5-7

So, was Jesus riding the ass or the colt? There is no contradiction here only two covenants, two promises. Naomi and Ruth beautifully displays the two.

“Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass’s colt unto the choice vine, he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes:” Genesis 49:11
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
To whom or to what was Jesus referring when He said, “On this rock I will build my Church”? What rock was He talking about? Catholics, noting that the name “Peter” (Greek: Petros) is really just the masculine form of the Greek word for “rock” (petra), say He was referring to Simon son of Jonah. If they’re right, if the Church was to be built in some sense on Peter himself, as head of the apostles, then this supports the Catholic doctrine of the papacy. Naturally, Protestants aren’t comfortable with that at all, and so historically, they have claimed that the “rock” to which Jesus referred was Peter’s faith, or perhaps, Christ Himself.

But as the passions of the Reformation era have cooled, and Protestant scholars have taken a more dispassionate look at this text, they have come to agree more and more that Jesus was referring to Peter himself as the rock. Of course, they disagree with the Catholic interpretation of what this means, but many now agree that the Catholic explanation of the grammar of the text is correct.

The following quotations, all of which are from Protestant Bible scholars, are taken from the book
Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy
(Scott Butler et al., (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing), (1996). a Protestant publication.

William Hendriksen Member of the Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary says Peter is the Rock

Gerhard Maier Leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian says Peter is the Rock.

Donald A. Carson III Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary says Peter is the Rock

John Peter Lange German Protestant scholar says Peter is the Rock

John A. Broadus Baptist author says Peter is the Rock

J. Knox Chamblin Presbyterian and New Testament Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary says Peter is the Rock

Craig L. Blomberg Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary says Peter is the Rock

David Hill Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, England says Peter is the Rock

Suzanne de Dietrich Presbyterian theologian says Peter is the Rock

Donald A. Hagner Fuller Theological Seminary says Peter is the Rock

For the Protestant Reformers to rationalize breaking away from what was universally acknowledged in their culture as the Christian Church, it was necessary for them to deny the Catholic Church’s authority. To maintain their positions, they were forced to portray it as a kind of "anti-Church" that was unjustly claiming the prerogatives of Christ’s true (but invisible) Church.

Their chief target was, of course, the pope. To justify breaking away from the successor of Peter, they had to undercut the Petrine office itself. They were forced to deny the plain reading of Matthew 16:18—that Jesus made Peter the rock on which he would build his Church.
More recent Protestants have been able to back away from the position that early Protestants felt forced to make and have been able to admit that Peter is, indeed, the rock. It remains to be seen whether they will start drawing the necessary inferences from this fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tom55

Jun2u

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2014
1,083
362
83
75
Southern CA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
kepha31 said:
That is not what the Greek says.

Greek Texts
Nestle GNT 1904
δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

Westcott and Hort 1881
δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]
δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Καὶ δώσω σοὶ τὰς κλεῖς τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν· καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς· καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

Greek Orthodox Church 1904
καὶ δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖς τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς



All your references above are Greek (pardon the pun) to me.


The prior action is Peter doing the binding. That much is obvious. What do you think "whatsoever" means? You are trying to justify your rebellion against the authority Jesus gave to Peter with absurd Bible twisting. Switching heaven with earth is unbiblical.
It is you who is trying to justify your rebellion accusing me of twisting the Bible by switching heaven with earth as unbiblical, yet it is your church that switched worship day from the seventh day to the first day of the week (this seem to be the teaching in religious circles). At least be consistent to what your church teach. However, I must confess it was not your church but God who changed the worship day. But can’t be seen in the English bibles (that’s another thread). Even in the changing of the worship day God had never given glory to man although He allows things to happen.


The kingdom of heaven Jesus is speaking of actually refers to the Church on earth.
The Bible actually speaks of two churches. On the one hand the external corporate local churches of the world and on the other, the invisible/spiritual Church headed by Jesus that I belong to which consists of all believers.

Finally, with Peter doing the binding (first on earth) that is then bound in heaven, (as shown in the original Greek) can heaven bind an error?No, it's impossible. What is bound on earth demands infallibility, which is inconceivable to sola scripturist Protestants.
[SIZE=12pt]Are you now admitting Peter is infallible? What an audacious statement to make and a very bold thing to utter! FYI, believe it or not, God is the [/SIZE]only entity[SIZE=12pt] that is infallible, and none other.[/SIZE]

The problem with you and your church is that you believe in a gospel that has a wider authority than the Bible alone, plus the infallibility of the pope, the sayings of Fatima, the sayings of Joan of Arc, and the Virgin Mary as a co-redemptrice. All these statements are a contradiction to Revelation 22:18.

I will now show you and your church and others who believe Peter is the rock that the gates of hell will not prevail how utterly false it is. Throw away all your scripture references, interpretations and explanations, we read in:

John 1:41-42:
He first findeth his own brother Simon , and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Is Jesus lying to us? If Jesus called Peter “Cephas,” which is by interpretation to mean, a stone, He couldn’t very well be pointing to Peter as the rock in Mt 16:19, could He? Secondly, how can sinful man be the head of the spiritual Church that Jesus redeemed and gave His life for?

I rest my case. Never believe any commentary unless the writer’s scripture references sre in harmony with the rest of scriptures, because their best work no matter how holy may seem is still tainted by sin.


To God Be The Glory
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
To whom or to what was Jesus referring when He said, “On this rock I will build my Church”? What rock was He talking about
I guess you cant read

Mat 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.

did you see it, did yoiu see what jesus was speaking of???

Of course not, for your religion has no revelation and it sole existence relies on one twisted scripture, whic it will answer for in due time. making a liar out of God.
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
How does one explain light to one who walks in darkness, how does one explain a rose to one who is blind. A man in prison feels safe after many years, than he is let out, now he has to fend for himself, so some re offend to go back to prison for there they are cared for, fed clothed and get told what and when to do. religion is no different.

Exo_14:11 And they said unto Moses, Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness? wherefore hast thou dealt thus with us, to carry us forth out of Egypt?

Can feel tha tway sometimes.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Jun2u said:
That is not what the Greek says.

Greek Texts
Nestle GNT 1904
δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

Westcott and Hort 1881
δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]
δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Καὶ δώσω σοὶ τὰς κλεῖς τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν· καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς· καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

Greek Orthodox Church 1904
καὶ δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖς τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς



All your references above are Greek (pardon the pun) to me.

You are the one that brought up Greek, I just showed you how wrong you are.

The prior action is Peter doing the binding. That much is obvious. What do you think "whatsoever" means? You are trying to justify your rebellion against the authority Jesus gave to Peter with absurd Bible twisting. Switching heaven with earth is unbiblical.

It is you who is trying to justify your rebellion accusing me of twisting the Bible by switching heaven with earth as unbiblical, yet it is your church that switched worship day from the seventh day to the first day of the week (this seem to be the teaching in religious circles). At least be consistent to what your church teach. However, I must confess it was not your church but God who changed the worship day. But can’t be seen in the English bibles (that’s another thread). Even in the changing of the worship day God had never given glory to man although He allows things to happen.
Objection to Sunday worship is an invention of 19th century cults, and has nothing to do with the topic. And you have not answered the question.
The kingdom of heaven Jesus is speaking of actually refers to the Church on earth.
The Bible actually speaks of two churches. On the one hand the external corporate local churches of the world and on the other, the invisible/spiritual Church headed by Jesus that I belong to which consists of all believers.

Finally, with Peter doing the binding (first on earth) that is then bound in heaven, (as shown in the original Greek) can heaven bind an error?No, it's impossible. What is bound on earth demands infallibility, which is inconceivable to sola scripturist Protestants.
[SIZE=12pt]Are you now admitting Peter is infallible? What an audacious statement to make and a very bold thing to utter! FYI, believe it or not, God is the [/SIZE]only entity[SIZE=12pt] that is infallible, and none other.[/SIZE]
Because Peter gets infallibility from God, which is what you do not understand. Peter can trip over his shoe laces, but he cannot formally teach errors because the Holy Spirit wouldn't let him. The Bible has all sorts of indications for infallibility of the Church and you reject all of them.
The problem with you and your church is that you believe in a gospel that has a wider authority than the Bible alone, plus the infallibility of the pope, the sayings of Fatima, the sayings of Joan of Arc, and the Virgin Mary as a co-redemptrice. All these statements are a contradiction to Revelation 22:18.



These "statements" are misrepresentations, putting it mildly. I call it hate propaganda.
I will now show you and your church and others who believe Peter is the rock that the gates of hell will not prevail how utterly false it is. Throw away all your scripture references, interpretations and explanations, we read in:
You are confused. Jesus builds the Church that the gates of Hades will not prevail against. If the gates of Hades has prevailed, then Jesus is a liar.. Peter does not build the Church, Jesus does, on the personal leadership of Peter. It's not complicated.

of John 1:41-42:
He first findeth his own brother Simon , and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Is Jesus lying to us? If Jesus called Peter “Cephas,” which is by interpretation to mean, a stone, He couldn’t very well be pointing to Peter as the rock in Mt 16:19, could He? Secondly, how can sinful man be the head of the spiritual Church that Jesus redeemed and gave His life for?

I rest my case. Never believe any commentary unless the writer’s scripture references sre in harmony with the rest of scriptures, because their best work no matter how holy may seem is still tainted by sin.
To God Be The Glory

Jesus is using the Aramaic "Cephas" or "Kepha" depending on the version, which has no constructive pronouns as does the Greek. No "petras".
Simon bar Jona is also Aramaic.


Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone, and "evna" means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is "petra", that "Petros" actually means "a small rock", and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus' blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used "Kepha," not "evna." Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.

Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the "small rock," he would have used "lithos" which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).

Matt. 16:17 - to further demonstrate that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, Jesus says Simon "Bar-Jona." The use of "Bar-Jona" proves that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, "Bar" means son, and "Jonah" means John or dove (Holy Spirit). See Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34 which give another example of Jesus speaking Aramaic as He utters in rabbinical fashion the first verse of Psalm 22 declaring that He is the Christ, the Messiah. This shows that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, as the Jewish people did at that time.

Matt. 16:18 - also, in quoting "on this rock," the Scriptures use the Greek construction "tautee tee" which means on "this" rock; on "this same" rock; or on "this very" rock. "Tautee tee" is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”

Matt. 16:18-19 - in addition, to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter's leadership in the Church. This is a three-fold blessing of Peter -

1) you are blessed,
2) you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and
3) you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation,
[but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom???]

Matt. 16:18-19 – to further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: Blessed are "YOU" Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to "YOU" and I tell " YOU" “you” are Kepha, and on this Kepha I will build my Church. I will give " YOU" the keys to the kingdom, and whatever " YOU" bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven.

Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter (Kepha), not his confession of faith.
 

Angelina

Prayer Warrior
Staff member
Admin
Feb 4, 2011
37,034
14,947
113
New Zealand
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
Matt. 16:18-19– to further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: Blessed are "YOU" Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to "YOU" and I tell " YOU" “you” are Kepha, and on this Kepha I will build my Church. I will give " YOU" the keys to the kingdom, and whatever " YOU" bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven.Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter (Kepha), not his confession of faith.
The idea that this discourse relates to Peter the person is not consistent with scripture. If Peter were the said rock and the rock is not his confession of faith, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Do you really think that upon this rock [Peter] he could still represent the Church body in general after denying Jesus 3 times which is found in the 4 gospels? Matthew 26:69-75, Mark 14:66-72, Luke 22:54_62 and John 18:13-27?

Again, if Peter were the said rock and not the confession of his faith, how does it affect his ministry when Jesus said to him in Matthew 16:23 But He turned and told Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me because you're not thinking about God's concerns, but man's."? :huh: Did God create a humanistic church?
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Angelina said:
The idea that this discourse relates to Peter the person is not consistent with scripture. If Peter were the said rock and the rock is not his confession of faith, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
It's consistent with the following passage. Jesus gave keys of the kingdom and the power to bind and loose to a person, not to a confession. Jesus did not say, You are Kepha and upon your confession I will build my Church. He did not say, "I give your confession the keys..."That is reading into scripture what isn't there. This is a direct reference back to Isaiah 22.22, where the prophet recognizes Eliakim as the steward of the royal House of David. The steward was the Prime Minister of the Kingdom. The keys of the kingdom were the sign of his personal authority delegated by the king himself. You don't like Isaiah 22.22 so you ignore it.

Do you really think that upon this rock [Peter] he could still represent the Church body in general after denying Jesus 3 times which is found in the 4 gospels? Matthew 26:69-75, Mark 14:66-72, Luke 22:54_62 and John 18:13-27?
Matt. 16:19 - for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person operating under the gift.

John 11:51-52 - some non-Catholics argue that sinners cannot have the power to teach infallibly. But in this verse, God allows Caiaphas to prophesy infallibly, even though he was evil and plotted Jesus' death. God allows sinners to teach infallibly, just as He allows sinners to become saints. As a loving Father, He exalts His children, and is bound by His own justice to give His children a mechanism to know truth from error.

1 & 2 Peter - for example, Peter denied Christ, he was rebuked by his greatest bishop (Paul), and yet he wrote two infallible encyclicals. Further, if Peter could teach infallibly by writing, why could he not also teach infallibly by preaching? And why couldn't his successors so teach as well?

Peter's weakness in his 3 fold denial has nothing to do with his primacy. John 21:15-17 - Jesus selects Peter to be the chief shepherd of the apostles when He says to Peter, "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." THREE TIMES. Peter will shepherd the Church as Jesus’ representative.

Again, if Peter were the said rock and not the confession of his faith, how does it affect his ministry when Jesus said to him in Matthew 16:23 But He turned and told Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me because you're not thinking about God's concerns, but man's."? :huh: Did God create a humanistic church?


Jesus didn't rebuke Peter for his teaching, but for his lack of understanding. Jesus then talked about his disciples picking up their daily cross, and there is nothing humanistic about redemptive suffering.

later on...
Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus also prays that Peter's faith may not fail and charges Peter to be the one to strengthen the other apostles - "Simon, satan demanded to have you (plural, referring to all the apostles) to sift you (plural) like wheat, but I prayed for you (singular) that your (singular) faith may not fail, and when you (singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

Are you saying the Father didn't hear Jesus' prayer for Peter?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tom55

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Mat_12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

And so this is what this is all about, one denomination trying to divide the body, if you are not with us that you are not His. So blind, should we ask the SDA's or teh JW,s what they think, why are they not here justifying there religion.
 

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
Angelina said:
The idea that this discourse relates to Peter the person is not consistent with scripture. If Peter were the said rock and the rock is not his confession of faith, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Do you really think that upon this rock [Peter] he could still represent the Church body in general after denying Jesus 3 times which is found in the 4 gospels? Matthew 26:69-75, Mark 14:66-72, Luke 22:54_62 and John 18:13-27?

Again, if Peter were the said rock and not the confession of his faith, how does it affect his ministry when Jesus said to him in Matthew 16:23 But He turned and told Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me because you're not thinking about God's concerns, but man's."? :huh: Did God create a humanistic church?
If I understand your statement correctly the Church Fathers and some Protestants will disagree with you that "The idea that this discourse relates to Peter the person is not consistent with scripture."

Tertullian Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called the rock on which the Church would be built [Matt. 16:18] with the power of loosing and binding in heaven and on earth [Matt. 16:19]? (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]). . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

The Letter of Clement to James Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus Himself, with His truthful mouth, named Peter (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221])

Origen Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? "Oh you of little faith," he says, "why do you doubt?" [Matt. 14:31] (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

John Broadus Nineteenth-Century Calvinistic Baptist "As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession" [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].

Craig L. Blomberg Contemporary 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].

J. Knox Chamblin Contemporary Presbyterian "By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself" ["Matthew" in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].

R. T. France Contemporary Anglican "The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied" (Gospel According to Matthew, 254).

Herman Ridderbos Contemporary Dutch Reformed "It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter" [Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303].

Donald Hagner "The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

Would you deny that Jesus is the King who possesses the keys to heaven?

Who does he give the keys to?

Peter!
 

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
shnarkle said:
That's not what the text indicates. Most translations get it wrong as well. Within the future periphrastic it is in the past perfect preterit. The most accurate way to translate it would be "what is loosed in heaven will be loosed on earth, and what is retained in heaven will be retained on earth" It is literally "having been bound", and "having been loosed".

Christ is not granting Peter or anyone the ability to do what they please with celestial approval. This would be to grant something to Peter which Christ Himself didn't have. Christ is simply showing Peter that he will be able to follow the divine pattern, e.g. "on earth as it is in heaven". Jesus only did what he saw the Father doing, he only said what was given to him from the Father to say.
Most translations get it wrong??? How is YOUR translation right and everyone else wrong?

What about John 20:23? Is that celestial approval?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.