Was Peter thr Rock that the Church was built upon?

Angelina · Feb 15, 2017

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.

I'm not ignoring anything. It is you who is adding to the conversation. Jesus was not someone that was to come but is come at the time he was speaking to Peter. He is the Son of the highest and the Lord God gave him the privilege to sit on the throne of his Father David as per Luke 1:32

I disagree with your premise here. He could easily have been referring to Peters confession of faith with the understanding that upon this rock " You are the Christ [The Messiah, the coming one] the Son of the living God. he/Jesus shall build his Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Then he/Jesus goes on to say in reference to his Church that he shall build in the passages above ~ "And I will give you [church] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

The last passage is the clincher where Jesus says ~ 20 Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.

Why would Jesus even bother saying that if the whole discourse was about Peter being the rock and not about Jesus being the Messiah, the coming one, the Son of the living God?

Are you saying the Father didn't hear Jesus' prayer for Peter?

No... you're saying that and trying to pin it on me like I said it. Nice try but that kinda ploy doesn't fly with me. :huh:

There is so much controversy here with the idea that Peter was the first Pope to Rome when many Protestants believe that Peter never even ventured into Rome. Then there's the whole Peter being the Rock when many believers will wholeheartedly disagree with your theology on that... and it goes on. I doubt that you will convince anyone here likewise but good luck...

BreadOfLife · Feb 15, 2017

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 Peter is NOT the Rock - the why does Paul refer to hims as "Cephas" in his letters??
Cephas is the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic "Kepha", which means, "Rock".

I anxiously await your response . . .

Angelina · Feb 15, 2017

...because God called him that "Rock" Cephas....It's an metaphor!

FHII · Feb 15, 2017

I'd like to point out something that I haven't seen brought uo before in regards to Peter's name. Before I begin I want to reiterate that I am done with debating Catholic doctrine.

Jesus did not give Simon the name Peter in Matthew 16. He called him by his birth name and his new name (Peter), but it wasn't in response to the revelation Peter had. At best, it was confirmation of that name.

How? Why? Well, please have a look

FHII · Feb 15, 2017

....at John's gospel:

John 1:42 KJV
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.

Now, John's letter is very reflective in nature. It isn't alqays chronological (especially the first chapter). But this part is. Its detailing Jesus picking his disciples. The verse clearly states that Jesus renamed him upon their first meeting.

In short, Peter bringing the revelation wasn't why he was called Peter: he had already been given that name. What did he do to get that name? Nothing other than follow his brother Andrew to Jesus.

tom55 · Feb 15, 2017

Angelina said:
...because God called him that "Rock" Cephas....It's an metaphor!

If we trace the figurative use of the word rock through Hebrew Scriptures you will find that it is never used symbolically of man but always of God.

The Jews of the time would understand it is a word of tremendous praise. It is a metaphor which is by no means strange or unusual to Jewish thought.

The rabbis of the time applied the word "rock" to Abraham.
"Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness, you who seek the Lord: look to the rock from which you were hewn, and to the quarry from which you were dug. Look to Abraham your father.."

[SIZE=12pt]The shepherd and the rock are symbols of God’s care and support for his people. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]He told PETER (the rock) to feed my lambs, take care of my sheep.[/SIZE]

When you add that Peters name was changed by Jesus, the son of God, and that a name change in the Torah and Jewish society meant a change in status.

AND Peter was called by Jesus to shepherd his flock

[SIZE=12pt]AND Peter is the only Apostle to have a personal revelation from God (“This was revealed to you personally by my father in heaven.) [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]And only Jesus name is mentioned more times than Peter's in Scripture (with no other Apostle even coming close) then we see that Peter was chosen by Jesus to lead His Church.[/SIZE]

BreadOfLife · Feb 15, 2017

Angelina said:
...because God called him that "Rock" Cephas....It's an metaphor!

His name was "Simon."
Jesus called him the "Kepha" that He would build His Church upon. THAT is why Paul calls him "Cephas."

"Kepha" is a TITLE as much as it is a name.
So, let's assume Jesus ALWAYS called him Kepha. In Matt. 16:18, He tells him:
"You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it."

If Jesus was telling Peter (Kapha) that his confession of faith is what He would guild his church upon - he would have said:
"You are Kepha and on this confession of faith I will build my church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it."

YOU would have us believe that Jesus was referring to something other that Peter (Kepha) - and that is simply NOT supported by Scripture.

epostle1 · Feb 16, 2017

Angelina said:
I'm not ignoring anything. It is you who is adding to the conversation. Jesus was not someone that was to come but is come at the time he was speaking to Peter. He is the Son of the highest and the Lord God gave him the privilege to sit on the throne of his Father David as per Luke 1:32

I disagree with your premise here. He could easily have been referring to Peters confession of faith with the understanding that upon this rock " You are the Christ [The Messiah, the coming one] the Son of the living God. he/Jesus shall build his Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Then he/Jesus goes on to say in reference to his Church that he shall build in the passages above ~ "And I will give you [church] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

The last passage is the clincher where Jesus says ~ 20 Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.

Why would Jesus even bother saying that if the whole discourse was about Peter being the rock and not about Jesus being the Messiah, the coming one, the Son of the living God?

Click to expand...

That is a false dichotomy. What Jesus says about Himself is not exclusive to what He says about Peter.

No... you're saying that and trying to pin it on me like I said it. Nice try but that kinda ploy doesn't fly with me.

Sorry. It was a question, not a ploy. But very relevant to Peter's role that seems to get denied at every turn. It's simply a different perspective.

Luke 22:31 ‘Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded[e] to sift all of you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.’

"turn back" from the 3 fold denial that Jesus predicted, But my focus is on the fact that Jesus prayed for Peter, and whether the Father ultimately honored Jesus' prayer or He didn't. If Peter is just an average Apostle, why is Jesus instructing him to strengthen his brothers? Why not James or John? Jesus' prayer for Peter, in spite of his sinfulness, asserts Peter's primacy.
God heard and honored Jesus' prayer for Peter that his faith (ultimately) would not fail. To ignore or deny this is the highest level of scriptural bias that denies Peter's supremacy.

There is so much controversy here with the idea that Peter was the first Pope to Rome when many Protestants believe that Peter never even ventured into Rome. Then there's the whole Peter being the Rock when many believers will wholeheartedly disagree with your theology on that... and it goes on. I doubt that you will convince anyone here likewise but good luck...

There have been far more Protestant scholars quoted on this thread who agree that Peter is the Rock than all the Catholic and Church Fathers quotes combined. Your biblical grammar is outdated.

Peter being in Rome or not is irrelevant to his primacy. It's beating a dead horse.

shnarkle · Feb 16, 2017

Most translations get it wrong??? How is YOUR translation right and everyone else wrong?

I'm not saying that they all get it wrong. There are quite a few that get it wrong, and even when some get it right, people tend to misinterpret what it's actually saying. The translators are trying to make it sound normal, but the construction of the sentence in Greek is difficult to translate and still sound right.

What about John 20:23? Is that celestial approval?

This is probably the best sounding translation that actually gets it right. The problem is that people don't pay attention to what it actually says.

"Whose soever sins ye remit(this is the present tense), they are remitted ( this is the past tense)unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

This sounds the best, but the despite the fact that the phrase in is the future, the secondary clause is in the past perfect preterit. So having been remitted, and having been retained necessarily have to happen prior to them being presently remitted or retained. Whatever sins they will retain or remit in the future will have already been retained or remitted. That is literally what the sentence is stating. What sins you will retain will have already been retained is the most accurate and easily understood way to say it.

shnarkle · Feb 16, 2017

Quote
Why would Jesus even bother saying that if the whole discourse was about Peter being the rock and not about Jesus being the Messiah, the coming one, the Son of the living God?

That is a false dichotomy. What Jesus says about Himself is not exclusive to what He says about Peter.

Now we've heard it all. What Christ says about himself isn't about him at all, but Peter? Yeah, that's it. That's really what this logic leads to ultimately. Peter is Christ. Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ isn't exclusive to Christ at all, it includes Peter as well. Makes perfect sense to everything you've presented so far. At least you're being consistent in your logic.

Angelina · Feb 16, 2017

Hi tom55

When you add that [SIZE=12pt]Peters name was changed by Jesus, the son of God, and that[/SIZE] a[SIZE=12pt] name change in the Torah and Jewish society meant a change in status. [/SIZE]AND Peter was called by Jesus to shepherd his flock [SIZE=12pt]AND Peter is the only Apostle to have a personal revelation from God (“This was revealed to you personally by my father in heaven.) [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]And only Jesus name is mentioned more times than Peter's in Scripture (with no other Apostle even coming close) then we see that Peter was chosen by Jesus to lead His Church.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Surely the flock that Jesus mentions to Peter was the lost sheep of Israel as per Matthew 15:34 and not the Gentiles as per Ephesians 3:1-3. Andrew, Simon Peters brother had revelation of who Jesus was before Simon Peter met him as per ~ John 1:40, 41, 42.[/SIZE]

mjrhealth · Feb 16, 2017

[SIZE=12pt]personal revelation from God[/SIZE]

Really John wrote a whole book called revelation

Its what Jesus is building his Church on the bit you keep ignoring

Luk_10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

1Co_2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

So few

why

Rom_8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

tom55 · Feb 16, 2017

shnarkle said:
I'm not saying that they all get it wrong. There are quite a few that get it wrong, and even when some get it right, people tend to misinterpret what it's actually saying. The translators are trying to make it sound normal, but the construction of the sentence in Greek is difficult to translate and still sound right.

This is probably the best sounding translation that actually gets it right. The problem is that people don't pay attention to what it actually says.

"Whose soever sins ye remit(this is the present tense), they are remitted ( this is the past tense)unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

This sounds the best, but the despite the fact that the phrase in is the future, the secondary clause is in the past perfect preterit. So having been remitted, and having been retained necessarily have to happen prior to them being presently remitted or retained. Whatever sins they will retain or remit in the future will have already been retained or remitted. That is literally what the sentence is stating. What sins you will retain will have already been retained is the most accurate and easily understood way to say it.

OK....I don't understand your conclusion on your translation of John so I will digress.

I understand that your not saying that they all get it wrong. You are only saying if they don't agree with YOUR translation then they got it wrong. So once again: How is YOUR translation right and everyone else wrong? How is YOUR interpretation right and anyone that disagrees with your interpretation wrong?

tom55 · Feb 16, 2017

Angelina said:
Hi tom55

[SIZE=12pt]Surely the flock that Jesus mentions to Peter was the lost sheep of Israel as per Matthew 15:34 and not the Gentiles as per Ephesians 3:1-3. Andrew, Simon Peters brother had revelation of who Jesus was before Simon Peter met him as per ~ John 1:40, 41, 42.[/SIZE]

Correct me if I am wrong but I think you meant Matthew 15:24, not 15:34 since the former is more in line with the subject at hand than the latter.

You are right when he says he has come to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mt 15:24). But we have to look at ALL of scripture to reveal the fullness of the message and the fullness of our Christian faith.

Christ calls himself the Good Shepherd (Jn 10:11,14) and he uses the image of the Good Shepherd to refer to his own ministry. He is the divine Shepherd who fulfills Ezekiel’s prophecy (Luk 15), Hebrews calls Jesus the Great Shepherd of the Sheep (Heb 13:20), Peter calls Jesus the Shepherd and overseer of souls (1 Peter 2:25) and in the Book of Revelation the Lamb on the throne is also the Shepherd of the lost souls (Rev 7:17).

Throughout the Old Testament, God himself is understood to be the Good Shepherd and he promises to come and be the shepherd of his people through his servant David.

Jesus Christ, who is the Son of David, fulfills this prophecy and God’s promise is kept.

Peter will undertake the role of Good Shepherd in Christ’s place because Jesus COMMANDS Peter to take charge of his pastoral ministry.

After his Resurrection Jesus then instructs Peter AND ONLY PETER to "feed my lambs, watch over my sheep, feed my sheep" (Jn 21:15-17).

John 1:40-42 was not a personal revelation to Andrew. When we put the whole story in context we see that it was revealed to Andrew by John the Baptist: John was standing with two of his disciples, and he looked at Jesus as he walked by and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” The two disciples heard him (John) say this, and they followed Jesus.."

Matthew 16:17 is a personal revelation directly from God to Peter AND Jesus calls Peter Blessed. Jesus, Peter and Mary are the only people in the NT that I can find that are directly called "blessed".

Jesus said: Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

Elizabeth....filled with the Holy Spirit....exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!

So not only was Peter called Blessed but he received a personal revelation from God which, once again, shows the importance of Peter in Christ ministry at the time.

epostle1 · Feb 16, 2017

Angelina said:
Hi tom55

[SIZE=12pt]Surely the flock that Jesus mentions to Peter was the lost sheep of Israel as per Matthew 15:34 and not the Gentiles as per Ephesians 3:1-3. Andrew, Simon Peters brother had revelation of who Jesus was before Simon Peter met him as per ~ John 1:40, 41, 42.[/SIZE]

Andrew identified Jesus as the Messiah, but is says nothing about a divine revelation. It could have been by deductive reasoning. Jesus did not change Andrew's name. When Jesus asked, "Who do you say I AM?" What did Andrew say? You are mixing different time frames and different callings to disprove Peter's primacy. The Bible doesn't do that, You do it because it is a man made tradition to do so. Period.

mjrhealth · Feb 16, 2017

The Bible doesn't do that, You do it because it is a man made tradition to do so. Period.

Are you not doing the same thing in reverse. One verse and your whole religion falls apart, We call ourselves christians because of Christ, you call yourselves catholics, why is that??

Is Christ divided???

Peter is not more important than Jesus nor any other of teh disciples, so why do you elevate his status so.?? He is not a God.....

epostle1 · Feb 16, 2017

mjrhealth said:
Are you not doing the same thing in reverse. One verse and your whole religion falls apart, We call ourselves christians because of Christ, you call yourselves catholics, why is that??

Click to expand...

The doctrine of Peter's primacy is not based on one verse but several. It is also based on a living legacy.
"Catholic" comes from the Greek word "Katholicos" which is right out of the Bible, and "Catholic" and "Christian" has been used interchangeably since the 1st century, you just don't know any history. Ignorance of history makes discussion with anti-Catholics rather tiresome. The same details have to be explained over and over. Since you have no church to begin with you cannot identify with the Church of the first 3 centuries, and no anti-Catholic can either.

Is Christ divided???

No. Who separated from the historic Church in the first place? Doesn't Paul condemn division?

Peter is not more important than Jesus nor any other of teh disciples, so why do you elevate his status so.?? He is not a God.....

Quote me where I elevated Peter's status above Jesus, or stop making things up.

mjrhealth · Feb 16, 2017

No. Who separated from the historic Church in the first place? Doesn't Paul condemn division?

You should be able to answer that, this is a "christian" community you have divided it by "demonination". Is Christ divided, No He is not but men have divided teh body of Christ by there "doctrines", You elevated Peter to a higher status when your religion made Him into something he is not, This whole topic will not end untill our Lords return and all the "false Churches" the Harlot and her children finally have there eyes opened when they see the truth that is Christ Jesus,

You think you are rich and have it all but you are blind and naked and have nothing.

BreadOfLife · Feb 16, 2017

mjrhealth said:
You should be able to answer that, this is a "christian" community you have divided it by "demonination". Is Christ divided, No He is not but men have divided teh body of Christ by there "doctrines", You elevated Peter to a higher status when your religion made Him into something he is not, This whole topic will not end untill our Lords return and all the "false Churches" the Harlot and her children finally have there eyes opened when they see the truth that is Christ Jesus,

You think you are rich and have it all but you are blind and naked and have nothing.

Uhhhhh, no - Protestants gave birth to "denominations" of Christianity.
This is precisely why we have almost 50,000 disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant sects - ALL teaching different doctrines yet ALL claiming to have the "Truth."

You're right about TWO things:
1. Christ is not divided and neither should His Church be divided like the tens of thousands of Protestant sects.
2. Your man made doctrines are not of God.

mjrhealth · Feb 16, 2017

Uhhhhh, no - Protestants gave birth to "denominations" of Christianity.
This is precisely why we have almost 50,000 disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant sects - ALL teaching different doctrines yet ALL claiming to have the "Truth."

You're right about TWO things:
1. Christ is not divided and neither should His Church be divided like the tens of thousands of Protestant sects.
2. Your man made doctrines are not of God.

No His Church is not but mankind and all His denominations have rejected Christ for there own teaching, No denomination own God not even yours.And all the text highlighting in the world will not change that fact. Spelling correction made to not upset people.

Was Peter thr Rock that the Church was built upon?

Prayer Warrior

Well-Known Member

Prayer Warrior

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Love your neighbor as yourself

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Prayer Warrior

Well-Known Member

Love your neighbor as yourself

Love your neighbor as yourself

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads