Peter the Rock?

[marks]

Sure, Jesus knew everything He told the disciples. The question is, did Paul know everything Jesus told His disciples? That Jesus was Paul's teacher (whatever that may mean) doesn't answer that question. (I've had many teachers. And I don't know even a small fraction of everything they have said to others.)

I have no idea whether or not Paul may have known everything Jesus taught His disciples. Does that matter? Weren't we asking about whether Paul gave some different teaching not having realized what Jesus had told someone else earlier?

Has anyone considered the possibility that Paul wrote First Corinthians in ignorance of the statement that Matthew records in Matt. 16?

My reply to this is, and maybe I wasn't clear in my previous post, hopefully more so this time, Jesus, who was recorded speaking in Matthew, was Who taught Paul, so there would be no contradictions.

Much love!

 

[RedFan]

I have no idea whether or not Paul may have known everything Jesus taught His disciples. Does that matter? Weren't we asking about whether Paul gave some different teaching not having realized what Jesus had told someone else earlier?

My reply to this is, and maybe I wasn't clear in my previous post, hopefully more so this time, Jesus, who was recorded speaking in Matthew, was Who taught Paul, so there would be no contradictions.

Much love!

Remind me how we know Jesus taught Paul about the foundation of the Church.

 

[JohnDB]

Remind me how we know Jesus taught Paul about the foundation of the Church.

Paul was a Pharisee of Pharisees. He knew the Old Testament intimately and thoroughly in Hebrew and all the nuances that a metaphoric language had to go with it.

Paul gave the same lesson in Romans in a somewhat less definitive fashion and not with such a dramatic point as Jesus did.

When Jesus taught this lesson it was huge and dramatic....as in over the top dramatic. But Jesus wanted to drive this point home to contrast one particular element of his preaching that He did NOT want his disciples to copy or emulate. IOW God retains certain licenses for Himself alone.

But one of the elements in this lesson/discourse was Peter's answer to whom the people believed Jesus to be...this gave us an insight into Jesus's behavior and how average people would perceive him to be.
And it does stand to reason that He is God...so we can expect Jesus to be zealous for God always and with a passion. He is licensed to "Jesus juke" every conversation. Especially when the world needs Jesus more than ever.

The first altar call Peter makes had 2,000 come forward....that's nuts in numbers.

 

[marks]

Remind me how we know Jesus taught Paul about the foundation of the Church.

Galatians 1:11-12 KJV
11) But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12) For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

I believe this applies to what Paul wrote in his letters.

Much love!

 

[quietthinker]

Peter the Rock?​

why not take it a step further and turn him into a Rocker?

 

[RedFan]

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?

 

[Marymog]

4th,
When Jesus says that He will give "you" the keys....as in access to the store/treasure/power rooms of heaven...the "you" this time is a neuter but intended as a PLURAL for all the Apostles. Because the lesson is obviously for ALL the Apostles.

And truthfully it's for everyone today.

Help me out here JDB so I better understand your opinion.

Your opinion is that when Jesus specifically told Peter (saying YOU 4 times) that he is giving Peter the keys you believe that Jesus really meant that he was giving ALL the Apostles the keys?

WHAT do you mean by 'truthfully it's for everyone today'? EVERYONE (every Christian for the last 2,000 years) has the keys to heaven? Is that what you are saying? I don't want to put words in your mouth.....

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

Just saying....
Use Google, use any reputable secular archeology and reputable secular anthropology books you want...see If I'm telling the truth.
PLEASE! Do yourself the favor....figure out what I'm referring to. It's not new information...just regularly ignored because it's not Catholic doctrine.

Hey JDB. I appreciate your input.

So, I did as you suggested. I used Google and found some books that provide commentary on the book of Matthew. Some of those books are Catholic. Are those Catholic books "reputable"?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Jesus' statement has escaped many.

Consider what was also going on (other than what you have believed): Jesus confirmed who He was and how Peter arrived at the answer to His question. Then he in turn confirmed who Peter was, saying "You are Peter." But what was Peter's name before? Not Peter...and where did he get the name Peter? Jesus gave him the name Peter. This is the overlooked framework of the conversation.

Jesus had just confirmed who He was...and then confirmed it again by showing that just as Peter's name was given to him by God (Jesus), God had likewise named Jesus as the Christ...now by Peter's confirmation. Meaning, that the conversation was not about Peter per se, but about the means by which Jesus would also build his church. Which He did by showing Peter just how he too had gotten his own name by God.

He then goes on to include Peter--not in giving him the power of God, but simply by stating of Peter what was thereafter to be true of everyone to be included in His church: "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." It was not that Jesus was giving Peter a special office, but rather that all people would decide their own eternal fate by their own actions on earth. Thus, it is indeed a personal matter, but not just regarding Peter, but regarding everyone...as it is Jesus alone who holds the "keys of heaven", and He alone who has opened heaven to all who would enter in.

Jesus holds the keys to heaven--not Peter.

Thanks Scott! I appreciate you telling me "what you have believed" and ask you to "consider what was also going on" in regard to this passage.

I agree with you that some have 'overlooked the framework of the conversation' and the significance of Simon’s name change to Peter. It is clear that John 1:42 has been "overlooked" but some men: “[Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas,’”. The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic Kepha, which means simply “rock.”

Another "overlooked framework of the conversation" is that God changed the names of the Patriarchs Abram (“exalted father” in Hebrew) who's name was changed to Abraham (“father of the multitudes”) and Jacob (“supplanter”) to Israel (“One who prevails with God”). So clearly when Simon's name was changed to Peter, it was a significant event. The 'framework of the conversation' clearly exalts Peter to a higher level or on the same level as Abraham and Jacob.

I have never heard the teaching that "everyone" has the keys to bind and loosen and that everyone now has keys to "decide their own eternal fate by their own actions on earth". From what man did you learn that?

They (the Jews) knew what Jesus meant when he gave Peter the keys. They knew the significance of the keys because of what was written in their Scripture (what we now call the OT) in Isiah 22:21-22. The Jews didn't overlook the framework of the conversation between Jesus and Peter. As early as 200 AD Christian men were writing about Jesus leaving the keys to Peter and Peter alone.....NOT to everyone. I wonder when that teaching changed?

Mary

PS: I think @JohnDB holds the same 'everyone has the keys' belief that you have. Can either of you give me the history of this teaching?

 

[JohnDB]

Help me out here JDB so I better understand your opinion.

Your opinion is that when Jesus specifically told Peter (saying YOU 4 times) that he is giving Peter the keys you believe that Jesus really meant that he was giving ALL the Apostles the keys?

WHAT do you mean by 'truthfully it's for everyone today'? EVERYONE (every Christian for the last 2,000 years) has the keys to heaven? Is that what you are saying? I don't want to put words in your mouth.....

Curious Mary

When Jesus said "I will give/grant you the keys" the "you" is neuter which in this context is an equivalent to the US SouthelEastern slang "Y'all" meaning all the Apostles....because this is a lesson that Jesus is teaching.
Access to entrance into Heaven at physical death is a foregone conclusion at this point...what Jesus is referring to with the keys is access to the store rooms of treasure/money and power to do anything from healing to moving mountains.

Where the Catholics use this set of verses to claim Peter is whom Jesus is going to build his church upon...that is out of character for the new Covenant and completely disregards the history and other very specific elements known broadly in the anthropology of the location.

Where the "Sending of the 12" account as illustrated by Mark's Gospel in contrast with the other 3 gospels quite definitively point to Peter's leadership of the Apostles....this discourse in Matthew teaches what primary driving principle is what Jesus is going to build his church upon.

I highly suggest that you look amongst the secular scientists who can explain the anthropology, history, geography and other facets of the location.

 

[Marymog]

Goodness is gracious!

1 Corinthians 3:10-12 LITV
10) According to God's grace given to me, as a wise master builder, I laid a foundation, but another builds on it. But let each one be careful how he builds.
11) For no one is able to lay any other foundation beside the One having been laid, who is Jesus Christ.
12) And if anyone builds on this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, grass, straw,

No misquote here, just the LITV with a few underlines and bolded parts.

Paul, as all others, builds on the only foundation there is . . . Jesus Christ our Lord.

Much love!

Hey Marks,

Yup, Paul builds upon the foundation that Jesus started. But what you have to remember is that Paul didn't become a Christian until 14 years AFTER the crucifixion of Jeus. Which means that the foundation for The Church was being built for 14 years before Paul came onto the scene. We must delve deeper into this Marymog....

Sooooooo after the death of Christ the 12 Apostles* were building the foundation of The Church by choosing other men to go out and teach the Truth. Those men then built upon the foundation of The Church by teaching other men the Truth. Paul comes along 14 years later and teaches James who was also part of the foundation of The Church. Christian history teaches us that Ignatius, Papias, and Polycarp were students of the Apostle John so THEY built upon the foundation of The Church. That doesn't mean that all those men were laying a NEW foundation for The Church; Jesus already did that. They were building upon what Jesus started but starting new churches in different cities (spreading the word of God across the known world). You know, kind of like Paul said he did in Corinth; laid the foundation for the church (singular) in Corinth. Now if someone went out teaching OPPOSITE of what those men from The Church taught then THEY would be starting a new foundation based on a false teaching.

Hope that helps clarify what Scripture says and what I have been trying to convey to you.

*That dang Judas messed it all up and the11 had to vote Matthias in as his replacement. But Justus was a close 2nd, and he was probably a stone in that early Church foundation.

 

[Marymog]

Or not. I'm quoting to you Scripture, take it or leave it. Jesus is the foundation.

Much love!

Marks, marks marks,

I agree with you that Jesus is the foundation; the cornerstone of The Church.

I ALSO quoted Scripture that says Paul laid a foundation! Are you going to address how both Paul and Jesus laid a foundation?

Or are you stumped on how to answer?

Did your men not show you that verse and how it plays into the building of The Church? Is that why you are stumped and have no answer?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

When Jesus said "I will give/grant you the keys" the "you" is neuter which in this context is an equivalent to the US SouthelEastern slang "Y'all" meaning all the Apostles....because this is a lesson that Jesus is teaching.
Access to entrance into Heaven at physical death is a foregone conclusion at this point...what Jesus is referring to with the keys is access to the store rooms of treasure/money and power to do anything from healing to moving mountains.

Where the Catholics use this set of verses to claim Peter is whom Jesus is going to build his church upon...that is out of character for the new Covenant and completely disregards the history and other very specific elements known broadly in the anthropology of the location.

Where the "Sending of the 12" account as illustrated by Mark's Gospel in contrast with the other 3 gospels quite definitively point to Peter's leadership of the Apostles....this discourse in Matthew teaches what primary driving principle is what Jesus is going to build his church upon.

I highly suggest that you look amongst the secular scientists who can explain the anthropology, history, geography and other facets of the location.

Got it......Soooo you HIGHLY SUGGEST that I don't rely on any other interpretation of that passage from any scientists unless that scientist agrees with what YOU think it means? Catholic "scientists" are not to be listened to?

According to Papias and Irenaeus the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic. According to my Google search (which you recommended I do) when Matthew 16 got translated from Aramaic they didn't translate YOU into YOU ALL.

Help me out here....can you give me a link from Google that supports what you are saying?

Patient Mary

 

[JohnDB]

Got it......Soooo you HIGHLY SUGGEST that I don't rely on any other interpretation of that passage from any scientists unless that scientist agrees with what YOU think it means? Catholic "scientists" are not to be listened to?

According to Papias and Irenaeus the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic. According to my Google search (which you recommended I do) when Matthew 16 got translated from Aramaic they didn't translate YOU into YOU ALL.

Help me out here....can you give me a link from Google that supports what you are saying?

Patient Mary

When Catholics do "research" they are doing it with a previously determined outcome.

And I did not suggest doing a theological study of the scriptures....I kept suggesting that you do a study of the geography, topography, anthropology, and history of the LOCATION.
Because the location is of utmost importance in this passage of scripture.... especially when the information gained by their dialog is already well established in all of the preceeding lengthy chapters of Matthew.

The Old Covenant was based primarily upon three individuals. Abraham, Jacob, and Moses. The rewards for following the Laws were financial and legacies. The New Covenant was going to be very different in this respect with no codified laws but a very definitive description of hearts and attitudes which governed behaviors. There also was to be a "brotherhood of suffering" which was the exact opposite of blessings.

 

[Marymog]

When Catholics do "research" they are doing it with a previously determined outcome.

And I did not suggest doing a theological study of the scriptures....I kept suggesting that you do a study of the geography, topography, anthropology, and history of the LOCATION.
Because the location is of utmost importance in this passage of scripture.... especially when the information gained by their dialog is already well established in all of the preceeding lengthy chapters of Matthew.

The Old Covenant was based primarily upon three individuals. Abraham, Jacob, and Moses. The rewards for following the Laws were financial and legacies. The New Covenant was going to be very different in this respect with no codified laws but a very definitive description of hearts and attitudes which governed behaviors. There also was to be a "brotherhood of suffering" which was the exact opposite of blessings.

Thank you.


I am unable to figure out why you believe LOCATION has a significant roll in Matthew 16:19.

Can you explain the significance to me?

Thank you in advance...Mary

 

[JohnDB]

Thank you.


I am unable to figure out why you believe LOCATION has a significant roll in Matthew 16:19.

Can you explain the significance to me?

Thank you in advance...Mary

Read my above post to Marks....

 

[marks]

Or are you stumped on how to answer?

About Peter being the first stone laid? We've been around and around this.

Much love!

 

[JohnDB]

@Marymog

I am so sorry....I said that the answer was posted above....it is not.

I posted a reply to marks in another thread dealing with a similar discussion....

Here's the link: I will build my church, and the GATES of Hades will not overcome it.

 

[marks]

Yup, Paul builds upon the foundation that Jesus started. But what you have to remember is that Paul didn't become a Christian until 14 years AFTER the crucifixion of Jeus. Which means that the foundation for The Church was being built for 14 years before Paul came onto the scene. We must delve deeper into this Marymog....

That doesn't change that Christ is the foundation, and Peter called himself an elder, among many other elders. Jesus Christ is the Rock, it's all through the Scriptures, didn't someone else post to you an extensive list of passages to you about that?

Why is it that these discussions seem to me to always come down whether or not we should believe the simple words we read? Your church so often has it's interpretation that seems to require that I ignore the actual words of the Bible. And I'm not about to do that.

Much love!

 

[Behold]

Sure, Jesus knew everything He told the disciples. The question is, did Paul know everything Jesus told His disciples? That Jesus was Paul's teacher (whatever that may mean) doesn't answer that question. (I've had many teachers. And I don't know even a small fraction of everything they have said to others.)

But you were not personally called by Jesus, to be the "Gentile Apostle", in the "time of the Gentiles'"

Jesus did not personally come to you and reveal the "Gospel of the Grace of God"..
But He did this for Paul.
Not for Peter.
'Not for Jude
Not for any other Apostle.

Peter who is not the "1st Pope" didnt even know that Gentiles could be SAVED, could be a part of the family of God, until ACTs 10., when God showed Him.
That is 8 yrs, after Acts 2:38, and Peter still didnt know that The CROSS was for EVERYONE., and that is about 10 yrs after Jesus is back in Heaven.

When Jesus said to the remaining Apostles, before He ascended.... "i have many things to tell you, but you are not able to bear/hear them now".

A.) Then, once in Heaven, Jesus Called Paul into the Ministry, as a "chosen Vessel"..
Why didn't he say...>"as another chosen vessel" or.. "one of the chosen like Peter"?

its because what Jesus did with the original 11, was mostly for the House of Israel.. before the Cross was Raised.
And After the Cross was raised, the Body of Christ, began, in earnest, and this included offering Salvation to the world.
Jesus came to the JEWS... = The House of Israel.
Paul came to the rest.
Understand?
The WORLD is mostly Gentiles, so, Jesus chose ONE MAN, to be the "world Apostle"... = Paul, the "apostle to the Gentiles".

If you study His ministry..
He wrote all the Church Doctrine,
He built most of the NT Churches that are listed as His "Epistle" titles.
I teach that he wrote Hebrews, and i can prove it, but, thats not this Thread.

Even PETER... said... that He had Paul's Letters, and that Paul's letters were """"SCRIPTURE"""... before they were in a NT hundreds of years later.
So, that is PETER, saying that Paul's LETTERS, were equal to the TORAH... Equal to the OLD TESTAMENT.

He was right.