Peter the Rock?

[RedFan]

Clarifying would be: "You are Peter (Rock) and upon the opinions 15 centuries from now I will build my Church."
That's not what He said, but how it is often read.

I appreciate the humor! But I don't think there is a soul on the planet who reads it that way. Still, there are many souls on the planet who ultimately draw that inference from Matthew's account. You're right about that.

 

[Marymog]

if Peter was the rock, why did the apostle Paul call Christ the ROCK (1 Corinthians 10:4), the only FOUNDATION (1 Corinthians 3: 11), and Peter himself called Christ the CHIEF CORNER STONE (1 Peter 2:6)?

Thanks Wrangler,

You seem to think that I am saying that Peter is THE rock of The Church. I am not saying that and have made that clear already.

Jesus is THE rock and chief cornerstone of The Church. No other foundation for The Church can be laid by any person. That means there is only One Church, and that Church was started by Christ. Peter, and the other Apostles, was one of many rocks in that foundation of The Church. Peter was, as Christ said, this rock I will build my Church upon.

Jesus also said, “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand! The Church is not built on shifting sands but upon rock.

mary

 

[Marymog]

If you don't mind, please go to the link I provided and formulate answers to the other 8 questions. Lets give Mary a shot at this one first. It will be fun to compare answers.

WAS PETER THE TRUE ROCK?​

1. If so, why didn't Jesus Christ say it more than once, or clarify it better? (Matt 18:16, II Corinthians 13:1)
This subject is still debated by Catholic and Protestant writers alike. One has to admit, that if Christ was making Peter the first Pope, he didn't exactly say so.

2. If so, why did Jesus address Peter as Satan merely four verses later in the same chanter? (Look at verse 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."

Even if we concede that Jesus was addressing the Devil, who was using Simon Peter, it is still not a very encouraging way to speak to the man you've just put in charge of your Church.

3. If so, why did no other person in the New Testament acknowledge Peter as the Pope?We should reasonably expect at least one other person in the Bible to have known about it. Yet, there is not one word said about it by any Christian anywhere. Not even by the other apostles!

4. If so, why did Peter seem to be unaware of his own new promotion, instead of worrying about John getting ahead?(John 21:20-23)
Peter was clearly wondering if Christ intended to give a special blessing to John but not to anyone else. The Lord Jesus told Peter in effect, "Follow thou me," and to mind his own business.

5. If so, why did Peter have to be publicly rebuked by Paul for false teaching (Galatians 2:12-14), and not the other way around?It would certainly not serve the purpose of establishing an authoritative chain of command to have a traveling evangelist correcting the Prince of Apostles and then make a point of writing to others about it.

6. If so, why did Peter only write two modest epistles, yet Paul wrote fourteen?

Peter	Paul
I Peter II Peter	Romans I Corinthians II Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians I Thessalonians II Thessalonians I Timothy II Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews

In fact, Peter tells his readers that Paul's letters were scripture, written "according to the wisdom given unto him" by the Lord (II Peter 3:15-16). By far, the undisputed teacher of the New Testament church was the Apostle Paul, not Simon Peter.

7. If so, why did Christ say that his church would not be patterned after worldly hierarchies (Matt 20:25-28), which the Catholic Church clearly is?The fact that the Vatican is the smallest actual country in the world, receiving and sending foreign ambassadors, operating its own public works systems; electricity, water, power, library, coinage, police; and meddling in the governmental affairs, laws, and elections of other nations shows that it is a political monster foreign to the New Testament. The Pope, as the visible head of the Catholic Church, controls more wealth than any ten billionaires in the world combined! Peter confessed, "Silver and gold have I none" (Acts 3:6)

8. If so, why did Peter get replaced by Paul as the most prominent Christian in the New Testament?
Peter preached a powerful sermon on the Day of Pentecost resulting in the conversion of 3000 Jews in one day. Yet, by the end of the Book of Acts, it's surprising that people weren't asking "Peter who?"
(Acts 2, Peter------------------------Paul, Acts 28)
Jerusalem Rome and beyond

Wrangler,

The main theme of all your bullet points seem to suggest that you have a theory that Peter was no more important than any other Apostle therefore he could not have been the leader of The Church. Here is why you are wrong:

Jesus singled out Peter when He gave him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19).

Jesus asked Peter and Peter alone to feed His lambs and tend His sheep (John 21:15-19).

Jesus said that He prayed for Peter ALONE to strengthen the others and bring them back to faith (Luke 22:31-32).

Peters called "Protos" (First) in the Gospel (Matt. 10:2)

Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Matt. 10:2; Mk 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13)

Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mark 16:7)

Peter takes the lead in calling for a successor for Judas (Acts 1:22)

Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, making him the first Christian to preach the Gospel in the Church (Acts 2:14-36)

Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12)

Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11)

Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40)

Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6)

Peter's name is mentioned in Scripture more often than all the other disciples put together!

 

[Marymog]

Hello….

This was addressed by many…..


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:

And your point is?

 

[Marymog]

Wrong. I've answered that question many times. Just not the answer you're willing to accept. HINT: Not the RCC!

Define many times? I found ONE answer to my question 'who rules over you wrangler', and here is your answer: No one on Earth rules over me.

Sooooo let's try this again:


Scripture says obey those (church elders, overseers) that rule over you. Who rules over you Wrangler?

Patient Mary

 

[Marymog]

Strawman. One of the reasons for the Protestant Reformation was the church's claim that there can be no salvation outside the church. The vicar of Christ and all that, which is rooted in the lie that Peter is the rock.

No Wrongler, it is not a "Strawman". You made the false allegation that Catholics have to believe "Peter is the head of the church as a condition to be saved". What you said is not true. Can't you just apologize for your lie instead of doubling down? Also, stop repeating the lie that I said or The Church teaches that Peter is the rock. Peter is what Jesus said he is: That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church

Mary

 

[Marymog]

I don’t care….. We were told to have no divisions.

1 Corinthians 1:10
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

That is true. We are told to have no divisions. Jesus even prayed that we may all be one.

Since you no longer believe that the Catholic Church is The Church we are to unite under so that we may be One and have no divisions among us, what Church have you joined since leaving the Catholic Church?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

The churches in Jesus Christ are catholic, being gathered from all peoples, nations, tribes and tongues. Collectively we are called "The Church", since "There is one body and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in you all." (Ephesians 4:5).

​

Hey Zao,

No, collectively all peoples, nations, tribes and tongues are not called The Church. All peoples, nations, tribes and tongues are members of The Church, but they are not THE Church. We are all members of the body of The Church, but each individual member is not THE Church (1 Corinthians 12:12-31).

Here is why I say that. What church do you go to fulfill Matthew 18:17?

How can all people of The Church fulfil 1 Timothy 3:15? ALL people in The Church can't be the pillar and foundation of truth when they all have their own 'truth'.

Can you now see how you are misinterpreting Scripture?

 

[Wrangler]

If Peter’s confession of faith is the “rock,” then why didn't Jesus say “upon this faith” or “upon your words” I will build my Church? THAT would have been clarifying it better!

Agreed, there are ambiguous texts in Scripture. A couple of points to keep in mind:

1. The Bible is rich in poetic license, which means not all sentences are intended to meet strict technically literal communication.
2. There are other verses that are explicit which must supercede verses that are more ambigious, e.g., if Peter was the rock, why did the apostle Paul call Christ the ROCK (1 Corinthians 10:4), the only FOUNDATION (1 Corinthians 3: 11), and Peter himself called Christ the CHIEF CORNER STONE (1 Peter 2:6)?

I am a technical numbers guy. Yet, it strikes me as odd that people are so doctinally motivated they prefer to rely on the ambiguous over the explicit to support their agenda. Classic scenario is a murder scene. You see me standing over a dead body with a smoking gun in my hand moments after hearing the gun shot.

Admittedly, this looks bad for me.

However, in another place it is written that several other eye witnesses saw the murderer hand me the gun and leave the room just before you walk in the room. Why would you continue to rely on the circumstanial (ambiguous) evidence that I am the murderer? Agenda.

 

[Wrangler]

You seem to think that I am saying that Peter is THE rock of The Church. I am not saying that and have made that clear already.

Peter, and the other Apostles, was one of many rocks in that foundation of The Church. Peter was, as Christ said, this rock I will build my Church upon.

You keep talking out of both sides of your mouth. Now, you are expanding the claim to include other Apostles, pretending like there is not the word for plural references, "these."

Why do you keep ignoring my question, if Peter was the rock, why did the apostle Paul call Christ the ROCK (1 Corinthians 10:4), the only FOUNDATION (1 Corinthians 3: 11), and Peter himself called Christ the CHIEF CORNER STONE (1 Peter 2:6)?

 

[Wrangler]

Scripture says obey those (church elders, overseers) that rule over you. Who rules over you Wrangler?

Patient Mary

Mary, you are so confused. I do not belong to your denomination. No one in the RCC rules over me. Thank God!

This line of questoning shows your morphing into Ad Homenim, really having nothing to do with the abuse of power of the RCC.

 

[Wrangler]

Also, stop repeating the lie that I said or The Church teaches that Peter is the rock.

I already quoted you saying exactly that Peter is the rock. If you cannot believe your own words, that's a problem - for you.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I do… and Christ said…
24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Take up the cross and follow Him… I don’t need you or your church to obey these simple instructions.

To follow His Church IS to follow HIM – and to reject His Church IS to reject HIM . . .
Jesus and His Church are ONE (Luke 10:16, John 17:21-23, Acts 9:4-5).

Good luck with that . . .

 

[RedFan]

Agreed, there are ambiguous texts in Scripture. A couple of points to keep in mind:

1. The Bible is rich in poetic license, which means not all sentences are intended to meet strict technically literal communication.
2. There are other verses that are explicit which must supercede verses that are more ambigious, e.g., if Peter was the rock, why did the apostle Paul call Christ the ROCK (1 Corinthians 10:4), the only FOUNDATION (1 Corinthians 3: 11), and Peter himself called Christ the CHIEF CORNER STONE (1 Peter 2:6)?

I agree that other writings can sometimes help resolve the meaning of an ambiguous verse like Matt. 16:18. But not First Corinthians. The two most plausible interpretations of Matt. 16:18 -- the petra was Peter himself, or the petra was Peter's confession of faith -- are BOTH inconsistent with Paul's assertion, which introduces yet a third referent for "the rock" (Christ himself). So First Corinthians doesn't resolve the ambiguity in Matthew. It simply provides Paul's perspective on the Rock of the Faith -- not necessarily the Rock of the Church as in Matthew, for nowhere in First Corinthians does Paul make THAT assertion (hence, we still have to decide whether Paul was actually describing the foundation of the Church -- injecting more ambiguity rather than less).

Paul had no cause to address the meaning of Matt. 16:18. First Corinthians was written before Matthew, and when authoring the letter Paul would have had no idea that Jesus told Peter what is recorded in Matt. 16:18 about the foundation of the Church.

1 Peter 2:6 likewise makes no mention of the cornerstone of the Church.

(Whether the gospel writer was aware of First Corinthians when he picked up a pen is an interesting matter for speculation. I suspect not.)

 

[Illuminator]

You keep talking out of both sides of your mouth. Now, you are expanding the claim to include other Apostles, pretending like there is not the word for plural references, "these."

Why do you keep ignoring my question, if Peter was the rock, why did the apostle Paul call Christ the ROCK (1 Corinthians 10:4), the only FOUNDATION (1 Corinthians 3: 11), and Peter himself called Christ the CHIEF CORNER STONE (1 Peter 2:6)?

Why does Paul call Peter "Cephas" (Aramaic for Rock) 6 times? Cephas is his new name, it's not a metaphor. A chief cornerstone is a metaphor, unless you want to argue the "chief corner stone" is a literal cornerstone.
Why does Jesus call Peter "Cephas" in John 1:42???
It's too bad you can't see the absurdity of your arguments.

The Church is an extension of the Incarnation, united by the Eucharist. Paul focuses more on the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians than he does about the Church.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 – the Greek phrase is “Touto estin to soma mou.” This phraseology means “this is actually” or “this is really” my body and blood.

1 Cor. 11:24 – the same translation is used by Paul – “touto mou estin to soma.” The statement is “this is really” my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.

1 Cor. 10:16 – Paul asks the question, “the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ’s body and blood?” Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul’s questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word “koinonia” describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood.

1 Cor. 10:18 – in this verse, Paul is saying we are what we eat. We are not partners with a symbol. We are partners of the one actual body.

1 Cor. 11:23 – Paul does not explain what he has actually received directly from Christ, except in the case when he teaches about the Eucharist. Here, Paul emphasizes the importance of the Eucharist by telling us he received directly from Jesus instructions on the Eucharist which is the source and summit of the Christian faith.

1 Cor. 11:27-29 – in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.

1 Cor. 11:30 – this verse alludes to the consequences of receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Receiving the actual body and blood of Jesus in mortal sin results in actual physical consequences to our bodies.

1 Cor. 11:27-30 – thus, if we partake of the Eucharist unworthily, we are guilty of literally murdering the body of Christ, and risking physical consequences to our bodies. This is overwhelming evidence for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These are unjust penalties if the Eucharist is just a symbol.

1 Cor. 12:13 – we “drink” of one Spirit in the Eucharist by consuming the blood of Christ eternally offered to the Father.

1 Cor. 5:7 – Paul tells us that the Lamb has been sacrificed. But what do we need to do? Some Protestants say we just need to accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior.

1 Cor. 5:8 – But Paul says that we need to celebrate the Eucharistic feast. This means that we need to eat the Lamb. We need to restore communion with God.

1 Cor. 10:16 – Paul’s use of the phrase “the cup of blessing” refers to the Third Cup of the seder meal. This demonstrates that the seder meal is tied to Christ’s Eucharistic sacrifice.

1 Cor. 10:16 – “the cup of blessing” or Third cup makes present the actual paschal sacrifice of Christ, the Lamb who was slain.

1 Cor. 10:18 – Paul indicates that what is eaten from the altar has been sacrificed, and we become partners with victim. What Catholic priests offer from the altar has indeed been sacrificed, our Lord Jesus, the paschal Lamb.

1 Cor. 10:20 – Paul further compares the sacrifices of pagans to the Eucharistic sacrifice – both are sacrifices, but one is offered to God. This proves that the memorial offering of Christ is a sacrifice.

1 Cor. 11:26 – Paul teaches that as often as you eat the bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death. This means that celebrating the Eucharist is proclaiming the Gospel.

1 Cor. 10:21 – Paul’s usage of the phrase “table of the Lord” in celebrating the Eucharist is further evidence that the Eucharist is indeed a sacrifice. The Jews always understood the phrase “table of the Lord” to refer to an altar of sacrifice. See, for example, Lev. 24:6, Ezek. 41:22; 44:16 and Malachi 1:7,12, where the phrase “table of the Lord” in these verses always refers to an altar of sacrifice.

Most Protestant churches don't even have altars, so no sacrifice, no priesthood and no unity.

​

 

[Marymog]

Mary, you are so confused. I do not belong to your denomination. No one in the RCC rules over me. Thank God!

This line of questoning shows your morphing into Ad Homenim, really having nothing to do with the abuse of power of the RCC.

You crack me up Wrangler. I never suggested anyone in the CC rules over you. It is not a line of questioning. It is one question that you can't answer. Clearly you are not in compliance with Scripture: Hebrews 13:17

Our discussion has nothing to do with the alleged abuse of power of the RCC. Weird for you to even say that....

 

[Marymog]

I already quoted you saying exactly that Peter is the rock. If you cannot believe your own words, that's a problem - for you.

 

[Marymog]

Why do you keep ignoring my question, if Peter was the rock, why did the apostle Paul call Christ the ROCK (1 Corinthians 10:4), the only FOUNDATION (1 Corinthians 3: 11), and Peter himself called Christ the CHIEF CORNER STONE (1 Peter 2:6)?

Already answered that.....Moving on!

 

[Wrangler]

Why does Paul call Peter "Cephas" (Aramaic for Rock) 6 times?

Irrelevant.

It's too bad you can't see the absurdity of your arguments.

Projecting.

 

[RedFan]

@Marymog, sorry to steal your platform. Wrangler asked YOU to explain the question you've been ignoring. I don't mean to preempt any other answer you care to provide.