Peter the Rock?

[Tulipbee]

“Satan” simply means “adversary”. Peter’s advice to Jesus – although well-intentioned, we adversarial.

Showing that Peter was a flawed human being doesn’t “disqualify” Him from any leadership role that Jesus chose to bestow upon him.

I’m not sure who “You” is – but I’ve never claimed nor even hinted that I am my “own” Authority.

Let’s NOT add bearing false witness to your erroneous positions.

I realize that you couldn’t address ANY of my points with an actual Scriptural rebuttal – hence, the bad jokes.

Next time - just admit it so we can move on . . .

Ah, BreadOfLife, you've unmasked my celestial comedy act! Guilty as charged – my scriptural rebuttal got lost in the cosmic chuckles. But hey, in the divine comedy club, we like to think of it as a holy mix of theological banter and celestial humor.

Now, about the papal system – let's spin this theological carousel one more time. The errors, my friend, are like theological confetti sprinkled over a cosmic parade:

a. Papal keys – more like a divine key party! Forget the exclusive locksmith showdown; we're all invited to the celestial shindig. No VIP passes needed.

b. Papal shepherd – a heavenly petting zoo saga! Peter, the exclusive shepherd? Nah, we're all in this pastoral department together, creating a divine petting zoo without favorites.

c. Solo strengthening prayer – Peter's hotline? It's a divine comedy club moment, not a one-man pep talk. We're all in for a celestial laugh and a collective boost.

d. "Protos" Peter – first among equals or first actor? It's not a papal play; it's a scriptural drama with a touch of leadership theatrics – a cosmic theater with no starring roles.

e. Alphabetical chaos – a biblical spelling bee gone wrong! Peter's name first, but not in the ABCs. Papal authority? Nah, it's just celestial linguistics having a heavenly mix-up.

f. Judas' successor – musical chairs or apostolic teamwork? It's not a papal casting call; it's a bishopric office in succession. No audition tapes needed.

g. Anathema authority – not a papal curse-off, just accountability! Peter laying down the law, and why didn't others step up? It's a divine courtroom drama, not a celestial hex.

h. Papal necromancy act – forget séances, it's Gospel resurrection! Raising the dead? Not a papal magic show, just apostolic power in the Church's divine spectacle.

i. Papal tutorial – nah, it's Gospel instruction! Cornelius seeking Peter? The Angel's GPS directing to the right apostle – no papal lecture series, just celestial guidance.

So, BreadOfLife, let's keep this theological banter rolling, where the jokes are divine, the rebuttals are scripturally spiced, and the punchlines hit like heavenly thunderbolts! #TheologicalBanterContinues #DivineComedyUnmasked

 

[ScottA]

NOTHING in those passages say that Christians have individual "freedom" to personally interpret Scripture!

By using Scripture, you are trying to convince me that the Holy Spirit has distributed to YOU the gift of prophecy OR wisdom or both. Well, using your twisted interpretation of Scripture and I am telling you that you are wrong. And I know I am right because the Holy Spirit distributed to ME the gift of recognizing wolves in sheep's clothing. My gift trumps your gift....

So, carry on as it is written, "Pause and wonder! Blind yourselves and be blind!"

 

[Wrangler]

Lol Wrangler.....soooooo good ol' Scottie is telling the truth? REALLY? Wow....

Or is Scottie telling the truth only when YOU agree with him?

When you don't agree with him, he isn't telling the truth!! Me thinks THAT is the truth.

What a mocking spirit you have.

I don’t always agree with @ScottA but I always love him and support his free religious pursuit. If the Holy Spirit tells him to go left and me right, we have no conflict. All glory to God!

None to your denomination.

 

[Wrangler]

I have never said that God's Spirit does not function outside my denomination.

What?!

How could this be? You said God gave authority only to Peter - and his successors in your denomination. It logically follows that Gods will could not be outside your denomination.

Mary, you must be tired from all that mental gymnastics.

 

[Illuminator]

Ah, BreadOfLife, you've unmasked my celestial comedy act! Guilty as charged – my scriptural rebuttal got lost in the cosmic chuckles. But hey, in the divine comedy club, we like to think of it as a holy mix of theological banter and celestial humor.

Now, about the papal system – let's spin this theological carousel one more time. The errors, my friend, are like theological confetti sprinkled over a cosmic parade:

a. Papal keys – more like a divine key party! Forget the exclusive locksmith showdown; we're all invited to the celestial shindig. No VIP passes needed.

b. Papal shepherd – a heavenly petting zoo saga! Peter, the exclusive shepherd? Nah, we're all in this pastoral department together, creating a divine petting zoo without favorites.

c. Solo strengthening prayer – Peter's hotline? It's a divine comedy club moment, not a one-man pep talk. We're all in for a celestial laugh and a collective boost.

d. "Protos" Peter – first among equals or first actor? It's not a papal play; it's a scriptural drama with a touch of leadership theatrics – a cosmic theater with no starring roles.

e. Alphabetical chaos – a biblical spelling bee gone wrong! Peter's name first, but not in the ABCs. Papal authority? Nah, it's just celestial linguistics having a heavenly mix-up.

f. Judas' successor – musical chairs or apostolic teamwork? It's not a papal casting call; it's a bishopric office in succession. No audition tapes needed.

g. Anathema authority – not a papal curse-off, just accountability! Peter laying down the law, and why didn't others step up? It's a divine courtroom drama, not a celestial hex.

h. Papal necromancy act – forget séances, it's Gospel resurrection! Raising the dead? Not a papal magic show, just apostolic power in the Church's divine spectacle.

i. Papal tutorial – nah, it's Gospel instruction! Cornelius seeking Peter? The Angel's GPS directing to the right apostle – no papal lecture series, just celestial guidance.

So, BreadOfLife, let's keep this theological banter rolling, where the jokes are divine, the rebuttals are scripturally spiced, and the punchlines hit like heavenly thunderbolts! #TheologicalBanterContinues #DivineComedyUnmasked

 

[Tulipbee]

View attachment 39799

Ah, the comedic wisdom of Calvinism! Picture this: A Calvinist strolls in, never late, nor early – a divine punctuality only predestination can orchestrate. Now, the humor unfolds as we contrast this with the Arminian notion. You see, an Arminian might fret over timelines, wondering if they missed their destined appointment or arrived too soon. It's like a cosmic game of "Guess the Schedule" where God's plan becomes a mere suggestion. So, while the Calvinist enjoys the divine comedy of precise arrival, the Arminian might be lost in a comedic time warp, uncertain of the script. It's not just about being on time; it's about the theological chuckles that come with divine precision! #CalvinistChronicles #ArminianAntics

 

[BreadOfLife]

Good, that's a start. Of which I also stated.

I meant "you all" as a religious sect. Since you insist that the it is the leaders of your sect that are in charge, I specifically meant you who believe them to be of their "own authority."

Nothing false, just what you have projected.

This is false.

The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that the leaders of the Church – act on their “own Authority”. It is by the Authority of Jesus Christ, per Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 1-:16, John 16:12-15 and John 20:21-23.

 

[ScottA]

This is false.

The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that the leaders of the Church – act on their “own Authority”. It is by the Authority of Jesus Christ, per Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 1-:16, John 16:12-15 and John 20:21-23.

Thank you for clarifying. But just to be clear:

So...you are saying then, that the Catholic Church leaders, including the Pope, do not have their "own Authority?"

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ah, BreadOfLife, you've unmasked my celestial comedy act! Guilty as charged – my scriptural rebuttal got lost in the cosmic chuckles. But hey, in the divine comedy club, we like to think of it as a holy mix of theological banter and celestial humor.

Now, about the papal system – let's spin this theological carousel one more time. The errors, my friend, are like theological confetti sprinkled over a cosmic parade:

a. Papal keys – more like a divine key party! Forget the exclusive locksmith showdown; we're all invited to the celestial shindig. No VIP passes needed.

Peter alone was given this Authority by Jesus (Matt. 16:18-19).
Where is the Scriptural proof that YOU were given this Authority?

b. Papal shepherd – a heavenly petting zoo saga! Peter, the exclusive shepherd? Nah, we're all in this pastoral department together, creating a divine petting zoo without favorites.

Peter alone was charged with this duty by Jesus (John 21:15-19).
Where is the Scriptural proof that YOU were given this task?

c. Solo strengthening prayer – Peter's hotline? It's a divine comedy club moment, not a one-man pep talk. We're all in for a celestial laugh and a collective boost.

Luke 22:31-32
“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you (12 disciples) as wheat. But I have prayed for YOU, SIMON, that YOUR faith may not fail. And when YOU have turned back, strengthen your brothers (12 disciples).”

Funny – I don’t see YOUR name mentioned anywhere . . .

d. "Protos" Peter – first among equals or first actor? It's not a papal play; it's a scriptural drama with a touch of leadership theatrics – a cosmic theater with no starring roles.

e. Alphabetical chaos – a biblical spelling bee gone wrong! Peter's name first, but not in the ABCs. Papal authority? Nah, it's just celestial linguistics having a heavenly mix-up.

Your grasp of Scripture, Authority protocol and the alphabet are equally pitiful . . .

f. Judas' successor – musical chairs or apostolic teamwork? It's not a papal casting call; it's a bishopric office in succession. No audition tapes needed.

You STILL haven’t explained why Peter was in charge of this gathering, Einstein . . .

g. Anathema authority – not a papal curse-off, just accountability! Peter laying down the law, and why didn't others step up? It's a divine courtroom drama, not a celestial hex.

And you STILL haven’t explained why Peter was the one who laid down the law and not somebody else . . .

h. Papal necromancy act – forget séances, it's Gospel resurrection! Raising the dead? Not a papal magic show, just apostolic power in the Church's divine spectacle.

Once again – your understanding of “necromancy” is as clear as mud.

Ummmm, and you STILL haven’t explained why Peter was the first one to perform this miracle . . .

i. Papal tutorial – nah, it's Gospel instruction! Cornelius seeking Peter? The Angel's GPS directing to the right apostle – no papal lecture series, just celestial guidance.

So, BreadOfLife, let's keep this theological banter rolling, where the jokes are divine, the rebuttals are scripturally spiced, and the punchlines hit like heavenly thunderbolts! #TheologicalBanterContinues #DivineComedyUnmasked

Angelic guidance.

The Angel knew exactly who was in charge . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Thank you for clarifying. But just to be clear:

So...you are saying then, that the Catholic Church leaders, including the Pope, do not have their "own Authority?"

Correct.
ALL Authority comes from Christ.

 

[ScottA]

Correct.
ALL Authority comes from Christ.

Wow--that's quotable-- alert the media!

So, back to the Original Post and my first comment #18-- Why the vehement assumption and insistence by the Catholic Church that Jesus bestowed all authority upon Peter the rock in Matthew 16, as if he was personally the Cornerstone rather than Jesus?

 

[Tulipbee]

Peter alone was given this Authority by Jesus (Matt. 16:18-19).
Where is the Scriptural proof that YOU were given this Authority?

Peter alone was charged with this duty by Jesus (John 21:15-19).
Where is the Scriptural proof that YOU were given this task?

Luke 22:31-32
“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you (12 disciples) as wheat. But I have prayed for YOU, SIMON, that YOUR faith may not fail. And when YOU have turned back, strengthen your brothers (12 disciples).”

Funny – I don’t see YOUR name mentioned anywhere . . .

Your grasp of Scripture, Authority protocol and the alphabet are equally pitiful . . .

You STILL haven’t explained why Peter was in charge of this gathering, Einstein . . .


And you STILL haven’t explained why Peter was the one who laid down the law and not somebody else . . .

Once again – your understanding of “necromancy” is as clear as mud.

Ummmm, and you STILL haven’t explained why Peter was the first one to perform this miracle . . .

Angelic guidance.

The Angel knew exactly who was in charge . . .

Ah, BreadOfLife, let us embark on a journey through the sacred texts, where the divine comedy of theological banter meets the profound truths revealed by Scripture.

In response to your assertion that Peter alone was given authority by Jesus, let us turn to the Gospel of Matthew, where indeed, the keys are mentioned. However, in the broader context of the Scriptures, let us not forget the words of our Lord in Matthew 23:8-12, where he admonishes against exalting oneself as a leader. The papal keys, my friend, are not exclusive but rather a shared invitation to the celestial feast.

Now, regarding the duty charged to Peter in John 21:15-19, let us not overlook the collective responsibility bestowed upon all disciples. In Matthew 28:18-20, the Great Commission is entrusted to the entire body of believers. The pastoral duty is a shared venture, not an exclusive role reserved for one.

As for the prayer in Luke 22:31-32, it is true that Jesus prayed for Simon Peter. However, in the broader context of the Gospel, this prayer extends to all disciples. The celestial boost is not a one-man show but a collective strengthening of the brethren.

Concerning the term "Protos" in the hierarchy, let us delve into the Scriptural drama without assigning starring roles. In 1 Peter 5:1-4, Peter himself emphasizes being a fellow elder, dispelling notions of a hierarchical papal play.

The alphabetical chaos you point out is a cosmic linguistics mystery, not a foundation for papal authority. The celestial spelling bee may have its quirks, but it does not determine leadership roles.

Judas' successor, a matter of apostolic teamwork, not a papal casting call. Acts 1:15-26 reveals the process of selecting Matthias, highlighting the collective nature of apostolic decisions.

The anathema authority exercised by Peter is not a papal curse-off but a call to accountability. Galatians 2:11-14 narrates an incident where Paul rebukes Peter, showing that even a leader can be corrected.

As for the claim of necromancy, let us focus on the Gospel resurrection rather than entertaining notions of magic shows. Apostolic power in raising the dead is not a papal act but a manifestation of divine authority.

Finally, the guidance Cornelius sought from Peter was not a papal tutorial but an instance of divine instruction. The Angel's GPS, as you eloquently put it, directed to the right apostle, emphasizing celestial guidance rather than a papal lecture series.

In conclusion, my esteemed interlocutor, let us engage in theological banter grounded in the richness of Scripture. The errors of the papal system, as you perceive them, may find themselves challenged when viewed through the lens of the entire counsel of God's Word. Let us embrace the divine comedy with open hearts, seeking truth and understanding in our shared journey of faith.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Wow--that's quotable-- alert the media!

So, back to the Original Post and my first comment #18-- Why the vehement assumption and insistence by the Catholic Church that Jesus bestowed all authority upon Peter the rock in Matthew 16, as if he was personally the Cornerstone rather than Jesus?

Jesus isn’t the only “Rock” in Scripture . . .

In Isa. 51:1-2, Abraham is referred to as the “Rock”. That doesn’t nullify Jesus’s title as the “Rock“ or “Cornerstone” – nor does Peter’s title of “Rock” nullify this.

 

[ScottA]

Jesus isn’t the only “Rock” in Scripture . . .

In Isa. 51:1-2, Abraham is referred to as the “Rock”. That doesn’t nullify Jesus’s title as the “Rock“ or “Cornerstone” – nor does Peter’s title of “Rock” nullify this.

Great! --even if you over capitalized "Rock" as if all were the Head.

The point is--only One is the Head, and otherwise there is no hierarchy of authority among the body--positions, even leadership, yes, but all as servants of the One Most High.

Meaning that "the veil" of access to God was not torn down to only give access to leaders, but "was torn in two from top to bottom", giving access to all. After which it was confirmed by the pouring out of God's spirit "upon all flesh" at Pentecost. Leaving "One Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus." 1 Timothy 2:5 Which is quite different than the position assumed by the Catholic church.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ah, BreadOfLife, let us embark on a journey through the sacred texts, where the divine comedy of theological banter meets the profound truths revealed by Scripture.

In response to your assertion that Peter alone was given authority by Jesus, let us turn to the Gospel of Matthew, where indeed, the keys are mentioned. However, in the broader context of the Scriptures, let us not forget the words of our Lord in Matthew 23:8-12, where he admonishes against exalting oneself as a leader. The papal keys, my friend, are not exclusive but rather a shared invitation to the celestial feast.

Peter didn’t exalt himself. JESUS did.

Now, regarding the duty charged to Peter in John 21:15-19, let us not overlook the collective responsibility bestowed upon all disciples. In Matthew 28:18-20, the Great Commission is entrusted to the entire body of believers. The pastoral duty is a shared venture, not an exclusive role reserved for one.

Now THIS a perfect example of why you have NO grasp of Scripture.

Peter was specifically commanded by Jesus to pastor His flock. In the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20) - ALL of them were dispatched to teach and Baptize – NOT specifically to pastor His sheep.

As for the prayer in Luke 22:31-32, it is true that Jesus prayed for Simon Peter. However, in the broader context of the Gospel, this prayer extends to all disciples. The celestial boost is not a one-man show but a collective strengthening of the brethren.

WRONG.

This wasn’t a general prayer for the good of the entire Church. It was a very specific prayer for a very specific person for a very specific situation.

Concerning the term "Protos" in the hierarchy, let us delve into the Scriptural drama without assigning starring roles. In 1 Peter 5:1-4, Peter himself emphasizes being a fellow elder, dispelling notions of a hierarchical papal play.

Ummmmm, this is because Peter didn’t exalt himself. Jesus warned against this (Matt. 23:8-12).

The alphabetical chaos you point out is a cosmic linguistics mystery, not a foundation for papal authority. The celestial spelling bee may have its quirks, but it does not determine leadership roles.

There’s no “alphabetical chaos” here – unless YOU think that the Gospel contains errors. Peter is named first in every list because of his preeminence - and NOT because the Gospel writers screwed up.

Judas' successor, a matter of apostolic teamwork, not a papal casting call. Acts 1:15-26 reveals the process of selecting Matthias, highlighting the collective nature of apostolic decisions.

I never said it wasn’t Apostolic teamwork.

I said that Peter was in charge – for which YOU had no answer.

The anathema authority exercised by Peter is not a papal curse-off but a call to accountability. Galatians 2:11-14 narrates an incident where Paul rebukes Peter, showing that even a leader can be corrected.

Paul’s rebuke of Peter has absolutely NOTJING to do with Peter’s role as leader. He rebuked him for his bad behavior – NOT because of his doctrinal teaching.

As for the claim of necromancy, let us focus on the Gospel resurrection rather than entertaining notions of magic shows. Apostolic power in raising the dead is not a papal act but a manifestation of divine authority.

Absolutely.
However, “necromancy” is NOT about raising the dead. It is about seeking oracles from the dead – trying to glean information from them.

Do your homework . . .

Finally, the guidance Cornelius sought from Peter was not a papal tutorial but an instance of divine instruction. The Angel's GPS, as you eloquently put it, directed to the right apostle, emphasizing celestial guidance rather than a papal lecture series.

First of all – I never said that Cornelius’s instruction from the Angel to seek out Peter was anything BUT divine instruction. He was sent to Peter because he was in charge.

Secondly - I never used that term – YOU did.

In conclusion, my esteemed interlocutor, let us engage in theological banter grounded in the richness of Scripture. The errors of the papal system, as you perceive them, may find themselves challenged when viewed through the lens of the entire counsel of God's Word. Let us embrace the divine comedy with open hearts, seeking truth and understanding in our shared journey of faith.

Ummmm – YOU wouldn’t even know where to start . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Great! --even if you over capitalized "Rock" as if all were the Head.

The point is--only One is the Head, and otherwise there is no hierarchy of authority among the body--positions, even leadership, yes, but all as servants of the One Most High.

Meaning that "the veil" of access to God was not torn down to only give access to leaders, but "was torn in two from top to bottom", giving access to all. After which it was confirmed by the pouring out of God's spirit "upon all flesh" at Pentecost. Leaving "One Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus." 1 Timothy 2:5 Which is quite different than the position assumed by the Catholic church.

Most non-Catholics don’t understand 1 Tim. 2:5 because of their rebellious nature.

The “ONE Mediator” description of Jesus points to the fact that only HIS sacrifice can bring peace between the Father and us. HOWEVER – this does NOT mean that there are NO other mediators. The Bible gives us examples of this.

1 Cor. 12:12-27 tells us that we are ALL parts of the Body of Christ and in need of each other.
We are told to pray for each other (James 5:16, 1 John 5:16).
We are told in 1 Pet. 2:9 that we are a “royal PRIESTHOOD”. Intercession and mediation is the very definition of priesthood.

Finally – Paul tells his readers -
Col. 1:24
Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.

Uniting our sufferings with those of Christ is what mediation is all about . . .

 

[Cassandra]

We can pray for each other. that's fine,but the Bible is clear on there being One mediator
1 Tim 2:5
King James Bible
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
we do not need to pray to saints--we do not need to pray to Mary. We can go boldly to the throne of grace.
It makes no sense to pray to God, and He hears it, and then a saint hears it (how--not omnipresent ) and then the saint pays to God, but god knows already, and who told the saint? Must have been the One who is omnipresent.

Our church believes that the dead sleep, so I don't believe they can hear anything, and Mary is waiting in the grave for Christ's return as well.
Also our Bible does not say Hail Mary, full of grace, it says this:

Luke 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women

I can only find full of grace in the DR Bible.

Luke 1:28 - Bible Gateway

www.biblegateway.com

 

[Truthnightmare]

Matt 16:16-18
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
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.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. KJV

The specific words that are key to understanding this are "Peter" and "rock," for they are both derivatives of the same word meaning rock. But the word translated to "Peter" in the verse above (and below) is petros, and the word translated to "rock" is petra. Also, the word "rock" below has the definite article in the Greek (although it is not seen in the English language translation), whereas the word "Peter" (although capitalized in the English translation) does not have the definite article. (Illustration to follow.)

But simply stated, a petros is a small rock; while petra is a large rock, even a solid foundation of stone.

Matt 16:18
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. KJV

Peter: Greek word #4074 Petros (pet'-ros); apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than NT:3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle: KJV - Peter, rock. Compare NT:2786.

rock: Greek word #4073 petra (pet'-ra); feminine of the same as NT:4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): KJV - rock.

(The definite article): Greek word #3588 ho (ho); including the feminine he (hay); and the neuter to (to); in all their inflections; the def. article; the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom): KJV - the, this, that, one, he, she, it, etc..

Below is a copy of the original Greek words of the key part of the verse. Notice the definite article (tee-Grk. word #3588) preceding "rock":

Also, the word "and" (between "Peter" and "upon") in the above illustration is kai in the Greek and can also be translated to the word "but" in the English. This of course changes the way that this verse is commonly understood. Observe:

and: Greek word #2532 kai (kahee); apparently, a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force; and, also, even, so then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words: KJV - and, also, both, but, even, for, if, or, so, that, then, therefore, when, yet.

But to give you a sense of the meaning of the word petra ("rock"), there is a city carved out of the side of a mountain, located in modern day Jordan, which is called Petra. "Peter" (petros) was a movable stone, a smaller piece; petra(translated "rock") was a solid foundation; and incidentally, that Rock was Christ:

1 Cor 10:4
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock [petra] that followed them: and that Rock [petra] was Christ. KJV

Rock: Greek word #4073 petra (pet'-ra); feminine of the same as NT:4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): KJV - rock.

But anyway, (Matt 16:18), we see in five short verses later that Jesus directs a rebuke at Peter:

Matt 16:21-23
21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. KJV

PS: Bullinger in his footnotes to the Companion Bible, on page 1345, will bear out what I have just said on this matter.

 

[Illuminator]

The specific words that are key to understanding this are "Peter" and "rock," for they are both derivatives of the same word meaning rock. But the word translated to "Peter" in the verse above (and below) is petros, and the word translated to "rock" is petra. Also, the word "rock" below has the definite article in the Greek (although it is not seen in the English language translation), whereas the word "Peter" (although capitalized in the English translation) does not have the definite article. (Illustration to follow.)

But simply stated, a petros is a small rock; while petra is a large rock, even a solid foundation of stone.



Below is a copy of the original Greek words of the key part of the verse. Notice the definite article (tee-Grk. word #3588) preceding "rock":

Also, the word "and" (between "Peter" and "upon") in the above illustration is kai in the Greek and can also be translated to the word "but" in the English. This of course changes the way that this verse is commonly understood. Observe:

But to give you a sense of the meaning of the word petra ("rock"), there is a city carved out of the side of a mountain, located in modern day Jordan, which is called Petra. "Peter" (petros) was a movable stone, a smaller piece; petra(translated "rock") was a solid foundation; and incidentally, that Rock was Christ:

But anyway, (Matt 16:18), we see in five short verses later that Jesus directs a rebuke at Peter:

PS: Bullinger in his footnotes to the Companion Bible, on page 1345, will bear out what I have just said on this matter.

​

 

[Brakelite]

It seems to me that Matt. 16:18 is unavoidably ambiguous on the key issue of whether the Rock Jesus had in mind was Peter the man or Peter's confession of faith. St. John Chrysostom thought it was the latter, in Homily 54: "He added this, And I say unto you, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; Matthew 16:18 that is, on the faith of his confession." CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 54 on Matthew (Chrysostom) St. Augustine did as well, Sermon 236A ¶ 3, in Hill, The Works of St. Augustine, Part III, vol 7 (New City Press 1993): “Upon this rock, said the Lord, I will build my Church. Upon this confession, upon this that you said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer her (Mt 16:18).” (I can't find a link, but I do have the book.)

A useful endeavor would be to collect the opinions of as many Church Fathers as possible on both sides of this, and weigh the arguments. I suspect that someone must have undertaken that endeavor and published the results. Does anyone know of such an effort?

Then you would be taking the authority of the church fathers over the authority of scripture.