Peter the Rock?

[Marymog]

I'm a Christian.

Is it that you want to impugne my understandings of the Bible by associating them with a denomination and then attack that denomination? Is that the plan?

If you want to discuss the Scriptures, then do that. If you don't, I'm not really interested. All this other personal stuff does not interest me.

Much love!

Lol....I have no "plan" here marks. It's a simple question in an effort to find out what men are your teachers. You already know who my men are.

It is now clear to me that no man is your teacher. YOU (a man) are your teacher. It is now clear that you have not found The Church that Christ started with Him being the cornerstone and foundation. The Church that was built upon by the Apostles. You are, as they say, a lone wolf Christian.

 

[Marymog]

Who, is an obvious answer. Jesus the Christ.

The actual church has already been addressed .

Hmmm....so according to you I am to go to Jesus to fulfill Matthew 18:17? Even though it says to go to other brothers in the Church and if that person doesn't listen to the 3-4 of us then we are to take our differences to The Church.....YOU interpret THAT as taking our difference to Jesus?

Interesting....

 

[JohnDB]

Lol Soooooo No...not exactly with protestants but with Catholics it DOES?

Interesting....Even though some Protestant teachings mirror Catholic teachings and Protestants have various teachings of the same passage....The Protestant teaching is always right!

We in the "protestant" camp have pastors instead of priests. The pastor needs to agree with the congregation or else he will be unemployed. It's backwards to the Catholics....even if a few Protestant denominations seem to reflect the same manner but different theology than the Catholic Church.

And no, Protestant teaching is not always correct.....not one protestant poster in this thread has glommed onto what Peter's Confession is truthfully about. I'm alone in my understanding of these verses. (At least on this forum)

So where I'm not wagging a finger at what you are saying (which parrots the Catholic Church's teachings) you, nor anyone else, has so much as bothered to investigate anything I've said to see if possibly they could perhaps be mistaken....even though I've pointed at VERY broadly known and published information that requires no special and hidden corner of the internet to find out. People stick to their narrow view of scripture and don't want the facts to confuse them. Even when the facts are quite literally a proverbial elephant in the room that everyone has to lean around to shout at each other....

Jesus was quoted as saying," I played a flute and you didn't dance, I played a dirge and you refused to cry"....meaning that most people are impossible to teach anything to. They believe what they wish regardless of anything anyone (including God) has to say about anything.

I can fully imagine sitting down to the Wedding Supper of the Lamb and someone tells Jesus that this is a "Christian Only" meal and He isn't supposed to be there. His place is in the kitchen with the other pathetic servants.

It's just human nature. The inability to admit being wrong prohibits a person from having a relationship with God....but for whatever reason "Christians" seem to have the most difficult time believing that.

 

[Mosheli]

The Catholic doctrine of the papacy is biblically based, and is derived from the evident primacy of St. Peter among the apostles. Like all Christian doctrines, it has undergone development through the centuries, but it hasn’t departed from the essential components already existing in the leadership and prerogatives of St. Peter. These were given to him by our Lord Jesus Christ, acknowledged by his contemporaries, and accepted by the early Church. The biblical Petrine data is quite strong and convincing, by virtue of its cumulative weight, especially for those who are not hostile to the notion of the papacy from the outset. This is especially made clear with the assistance of biblical commentaries. The evidence of Holy Scripture (RSV) follows:

1. Matthew 16:18: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”

The rock (Greek, petra) referred to here is St. Peter himself, not his faith or Jesus Christ. Christ appears here not as the foundation, but as the architect who “builds.” The Church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors – living men (see, e.g., 1 Pet 2:5). Today, the overwhelming consensus of the great majority of all biblical scholars and commentators is in favor of the traditional Catholic understanding. Here St. Peter is spoken of as the foundation-stone of the Church, making him head and superior of the family of God (i.e., the seed of the doctrine of the papacy). Moreover, Rock embodies a metaphor applied to him by Christ in a sense analogous to the suffering and despised Messiah (1 Pet 2:4-8; cf. Mt 21:42). Without a solid foundation a house falls. St. Peter is the foundation, but not founder of the Church, administrator, but not Lord of the Church. The Good Shepherd (John 10:11) gives us other shepherds as well (Eph 4:11).

50 New Testament Proofs For Peter's Primacy & The Papacy

The papacy is derived from Peter's primacy among the apostles. It's essential components are revealed in the apostolic leadership of St. Peter.

www.patheos.com

I'm afraid I have to disagree that Peter is the rock and not Jesus/Christ. The following NT verses surely support the view that Jesus is the rock that the church is built on.

Matthew 7:24 "Everyone therefore who hears these words of mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man, who built his house on a rock.
7:25 The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it didn't fall, for it was founded on the rock.

Matthew 16:18 I also tell you that you are Peter, (Peter's name, Petros in Greek, Latin Petrus, is the word for a specific rock or stone.) and on this rock (Greek, petra, Latin petram, a rock mass or bedrock.) I will build my assembly, ....

Matthew 21:42 'The stone which the builders rejected, the same was made the head of the corner. This was from the Lord. It is marvelous in our eyes?' (Psalm 118:22-23) ....
21:44 He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but on whoever it will fall, it will scatter him as dust."

Mark 12:10 Haven't you even read this Scripture: 'The stone which the builders rejected, the same was made the head of the corner.

Luke 6:47 Everyone who comes to me, and hears my words, and does them, I will show you who he is like.
6:48 He is like a man building a house, who dug and went deep, and laid a foundation on the rock. When a flood arose, the stream broke against that house, and could not shake it, because it was founded on the rock.

Luke 20:17 But he looked at them, and said, "Then what is this that is written, 'The stone which the builders rejected, the same was made the chief cornerstone?' (Psalm 118:22)
020:018 Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but it will crush whomever it falls on to dust."

Acts 4:11 He (Jesus) is 'the stone which was regarded as worthless by you, the builders, which has become the head of the corner.' (Psalm 118:22)

Romans 9:32 ... They stumbled over the stumbling stone;
9:33 even as it is written, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and a rock of offense; and no one who believes in him will be disappointed." (Isaiah 8:14; 28:16)

1 Corinthians 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.

Ephesians 2:20 being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone; ....

1 Peter 2:4 coming to him, a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God, precious.
2:5 You also, as living stones, are built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
2:6 Because it is contained in Scripture, "Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, chosen, and precious: He who believes in him will not be disappointed." (Isaiah 28:16)
2:7 For you who believe therefore is the honor, but for those who are disobedient, "The stone which the builders rejected, has become the chief cornerstone," (Psalm 118:22)
2:8 and, "a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." (Isaiah 8:14)

This last one also says in Zion not in Rome.

 

[Marymog]

We in the "protestant" camp have pastors instead of priests. The pastor needs to agree with the congregation or else he will be unemployed. It's backwards to the Catholics....even if a few Protestant denominations seem to reflect the same manner but different theology than the Catholic Church.

Hey JohnDB,

Me thinks YOU have it backwards. Scripture doesn't say THROW OUT the pastor if the congregation disagrees with them. It says: Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.

Scripture says that the Holy Spirit has appointed the "pastors" over the flock: Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

Mary

 

[marks]

You are, as they say, a lone wolf Christian.

Again, obviously, you wanted to label me to impugne me, and that's what you've done. I was not wrong, and your words have no greater significance than that.

Much love!

 

[Marymog]

When we read the Matthew 16 verses in the original Greek here Matthew 16 Interlinear Bible we see that Peter is Petros but the rock the church is built on is Petra, so I can't see that Peter is the rock the church is built on.

There is no evidence in the Bible that Peter was bishop of the church at Rome, nor is there any extra-Biblical historical evidence outside of later Roman church writings.
The only possible biblical evidence is where Peter passes on a greeting from "Babylon" (which may have been a code name for Rome), but the verses don't say he was at "Babylon" just that he was passing on a greeting from "Babylon" (1 Peter 5:13). Another bible verse says he will be brought where he does not desire (John 21:18), but again this doesn't actually say Rome.

Maybe @Cassandra and @BlessedPeace who "liked" your post can provide evidence that my post (#77) is not factual in regard to "extra-Biblical historical evidence" about Peter being in Rome? If they can't.....I am not sure what you "liked" about Mosheli's post? That Mosheli DIDN'T tell the truth? Is that what cassandra and blessedpeace "like"?

Mary

 

[marks]

What I'm referring to is the process called Hermeneutics.

Absolutely!! And we use Scripture to interpret Scripture, it always does, as I've found it. Once we've determined the, what I call it, plain saying of the Scripture, we are to believe it, receive it. Plain saying, that is, taking into account these idioms and such, metaphors, allegories, all the figures of speech, and the way language is used.

And to misuse any of these, declaring a symbol where there is not symbol, or declaring literal when the allegory is explained.

At the end of the day, some will receive it, and some will not, for any number of reasons.

Much love!

 

[BlessedPeace]

What I read happening here is that it appears some are trying to talk Catholics out of being Catholic.

While the Catholics try to do the same to the Protestants.


Add in a few personal barbs from both sides and this thread is looking like there is a lot to learn about being at peace in Christ.

You don't have to be mean to be right.

 

[marks]

You don't have to be mean to be right.

Being mean is always a choice.

Much love!

 

[Marymog]

Again, obviously, you wanted to label me to impugne me, and that's what you've done. I was not wrong, and your words have no greater significance than that.

Much love!

You put the FUN in FUNny Marks!

You have impugned yourself kiddo, and you don't even know it.

YES, you are wrong when you take the lone wolf approach to being a Christian. No where at no time does Scripture ever say to do that.

Here is a quote from Scripture to show you how WRONG you are in your lone wolf approach: Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you. WHO rules over you MARKS? NO ONE.....except YOU!!! YOU can't even fulfil that simple passage from Scripture because you have NO ONE that rules over you! I feel sad for you.....

How about this one MARKS: And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

YOU have no one that rules over you and you have no church to go to to fulfil what Scripture says. I DO kiddo. Sooooo WHO is "wrong"? YOU, according to Scripture, are WRONG!

Marymog has a church to go to and men that rule over me kiddo...YOU don't.

Thank you for the entertainment!

 

[Marymog]

What I read happening here is that it appears some are trying to talk Catholics out of being Catholic.

While the Catholics try to do the same to the Protestants.


Add in a few personal barbs from both sides and this thread is looking like there is a lot to learn about being at peace in Christ.

You don't have to be mean to be right.

Hey BlessedPeace,

There is only ONE Truth....I am spreading the Truth.

Translation: I am not trying to talk Protestants out of being Protestants. I am only telling the Truth.

Tell me what post I have been mean in and I will retract it.

Mary

 

[Cassandra]

Maybe @Cassandra and @BlessedPeace who "liked" your post can provide evidence that my post (#77) is not factual in regard to "extra-Biblical historical evidence" about Peter being in Rome? If they can't.....I am not sure what you "liked" about Mosheli's post? That Mosheli DIDN'T tell the truth? Is that what cassandra and blessedpeace "like"?

Mary

The "evidence" is not hard:
The question of whether Peter, one of Jesus' apostles, was ever in Rome has been a subject of historical and religious interest for centuries. While the New Testament doesn't explicitly mention Peter being in Rome, there is tradition that suggest he was there, particularly towards the end of his life. Here are a few points often discussed in this context:

1. Early Christian Writers: Several early Christian writers and Church Fathers mention Peter's presence and martyrdom in Rome. For example:
   • Clement of Rome: Writing in the first century, Clement refers to Peter's suffering but does not specifically mention Rome.
   • Ignatius of Antioch: Writing early in the second century, suggests that Peter and Paul gave instructions and were martyred in Rome.
   • Irenaeus of Lyon: Writing in the late 2nd century, explicitly mentions that Peter and Paul preached in Rome and laid the foundation for the church there.
2. The Acts of Peter: This is an apocryphal book, likely written in the second century, that details Peter's supposed acts and death in Rome. Though not considered canonical, it contributes to the tradition of Peter's martyrdom in Rome.
3. Archaeological Claims: There have been claims and studies regarding the possible relics and tomb of Peter beneath St. Peter's Basilica in Vatican City. The excavations under the basilica, particularly in the 20th century, uncovered a necropolis and what some believe to be Peter's tomb. The evidence is a matter of ongoing study and debate.
4. Babylon as a Codename: In his first epistle (1 Peter 5:13), Peter mentions that the church in "Babylon" sends greetings. Some scholars and early Christians interpreted "Babylon" as a cryptic reference to Rome, a theory that hinges on the idea that "Babylon" was used to refer to Rome in a period of persecution.I would like to thank Chat for the research.

 

[marks]

when you take the lone wolf approach to being a Christian.

You grab your presumption and run with it . . . That's all you are doing.

Anyway, weren't we agreed that this was done? I'm thinking it should be.

Much love!

 

[Marymog]

and I will like any posts that i want.

Hey Cassandra,

I may be the odd duck here on what the 'like' button means. I have questioned others in the past why the liked a post when the information in the post was clearly not true. One person that I questioned said, 'just because I liked a post doesn't mean that I agree with it.'

To me when one 'likes' a post that means they agree with it OR they are promoting it. Is that how you see it....or am I the odd duck?

Respectfully, Mary

 

[Marymog]

You grab your presumption and run with it . . . That's all you are doing.

Anyway, weren't we agreed that this was done? I'm thinking it should be.

Much love!

Good morning marks,

I have to presume since you didn't answer. If you give an answer, I don't presume.

Mary

 

[RedFan]

It seems some of us on this post are wandering on the road to Mecca. Maybe I am one of them, but here is my $0.02:

The validity of Papal Primacy does not turn on whether Peter, as opposed to Peter's confession, was "the Rock." Let's grant the former for the sake of argument. Nor does it turn on whether Peter was ever in Rome. Let's grant that too for the sake of argument. Even granting both, the question remains: WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE THAT PETER'S SUCCESSORS ARE AFFORDED THE SAME AUTHORITY AS HIM?

1. No recorded word of Christ suggests it. (For the "if it ain't found in Scripture it ain't true" crowd, that's the end of the discussion. But I am not a member of that crowd.)

2. No writings of the first three centuries of Christendom establish it as a generally accepted proposition in the Church.
a. the writing most pointed to on the subject is the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Church at Corinth, toward the end of the First Century, urging the Corinthians not to depose their own leaders. I find this equivocal at best. Some have argued that because it responds to a matter on which the Corinthians had apparently consulted Rome, these Corinthians must have recognized Rome’s hegemony. But read its tenor, and one thing jumps out: this is not the writing of a man who thought he could impose his will in Greece. (Indeed, in chapter 56 he suggests to the dissenting Corinthians that “they should submit themselves, I do not say unto us, but unto the will of God.”)
b. In the middle of the third century, Pope Stephen’s view regarding the efficacy of baptism by heretics was rejected by 87 bishops at a Council of Carthage, at which Cyprian stated: “For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.” CHURCH FATHERS: On the Baptism of Heretics (Council of Carthage)
c. There is evidence of various sees (Rome, Antioch, Alexandria) having authority over neighboring provinces or otherwise associated bishoprics, but with complete autonomy in their own spheres, i.e., Alexandria and Antioch gave no deference to Rome. In 325 the Council of Nicaea produced, aside from its famous Creed, about twenty canons, the sixth of which suggests if not confirms the equal standing of these three sees. www.fourthcentury.com/nicaea-325-canons/

3. Peter's successors were either appointed by their predecessor or elected. Both have problems:
a. If Peter had power to appoint a successor, so did all of the apostles. Just as all of the apostles were commissioned with the same power to bind and to loose that Matt. 16:19 references as being conferred on Peter (see John 20:22-23), so all of the apostles had power to appoint successors and bishops in cities throughout the Mediterranean world, with equal authority – and they did so, multiple times. Why should Peter’s appointee be deemed preeminent? Why not treat all apostolic successions as equal, free of the oversight of Rome? And why should Peter's appointee in Rome have more authority than any other of his appointees (say, in Antioch)? These questions are unaddressed, and need to be.
b. If election of a successor passes all of Peter's power to the electee, a la Matthias in Acts 1:24-26, we would want the electors to fully represent the Church (just like election of Matthias by the eleven apostles pre-Pentecost). But that didn't happen for centuries. At best, bishops in Italy did the electing, if not just in Rome proper. Whence cometh the validity of that? There is neither a record of nor a reason to believe the existence of a Mediterranean-wide election of a Pope for a thousand years.

4. The argument from necessity is weak. Irenaeus’s Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3) calls it “a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this (Roman) Church, on account of its preeminent authority,” but offers no reason why this should be so. And a moment's reflection establishes that it is not so. It is perfectly plausible to allow each episcopate full authority within its borders, and in the event of inter-episcopate disagreements on important matters of doctrine, to call a convention of bishops to resolve them and quash heresies.

I'd like to see these and other issues addressed rather than squabbles over interpretation of Matthew or of Peter's sojourn to "Babylon." Who is in?

 

[Marymog]

Absolutely!! And we use Scripture to interpret Scripture, it always does, as I've found it. Once we've determined the, what I call it, plain saying of the Scripture, we are to believe it, receive it. Plain saying, that is, taking into account these idioms and such, metaphors, allegories, all the figures of speech, and the way language is used.

And to misuse any of these, declaring a symbol where there is not symbol, or declaring literal when the allegory is explained.

At the end of the day, some will receive it, and some will not, for any number of reasons.

Much love!

Hey Marks,

If Scripture is such a "plain saying" then why are there debates about what it says? This entire thread is debating what Jesus words to Peter meant! Jesus plainly and clearly tells Peter he is rock....but yet it is being debated.

You talk about misuse. WHO decides when Scripture has been "misused'?

Curious Mary

 

[VictoryinJesus]

There was a previous discussion by @Taken and @Mr E about Peter being a rock or THE rock. Searching for threads concerning this I could not find any, so I am starting one.

Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” 14 So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you 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.”​

In post #666 of that discussion Taken didn't look at the full context of the discussion between Peter and Jesus. Taken said, "The Whole HIGHLIGHT of THAT conversation WAS expressly….WHO IS JESUS!". That is such an odd thing to say when Taken did NOT give the whole highlight of that conversation. Taken left out the entire conversation. What about the rest of the conversation and the mentioning of the key? Taken seems to have eluded to the keys when he said, “IS” the KEY that opens the DOOR FOR “the ROCK”. Ie. The SPIRIT of God, The TRUTH of God, TO physically ENTER INTO A MANS HEART." None of that makes any sense to me, but to others it may.

No, Taken, the key that opens the door is not FOR the rock i.e. the spirit of God the truth of God to physically enter into a man's heart. What man taught you that?

The key refers back to Isaiah 22:15-22! The first century Jews knew what Jesus was referring to when he said keys.

Also, Jesus said that YOU are Peter and on this rock I will build my church and I will give YOU the keys and whatever YOU bind on earth and whatever YOU loosen on earth......IMO Taken changes YOU YOU YOU YOU into, Jesus didn't really mean YOU, he meant Peter figured out who Jesus is.

One more tidbit to think about; The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic Kepha, which means simply “rock.” There would have been no “small rock” to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter.

Thoughts?

Mary

[edited]

To me it all points to “the Revelation of Jesus Christ” which God gave unto him to show his servants. That is what Christ is highlighting in revealing to Peter: “the Revelation of Jesus Christ” because it’s “not flesh and blood revealed this unto you but My Father which is in heaven” …even in The Revelation of Jesus Christ there is
Revelation 1:3 ESV - Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near.
“Blessed are you Peter, for flesh and blood did not reveal this(who I am, the Revelation of Jesus Christ) unto you but My Father which is in heaven” …My Father in Heaven revealed unto you the Son.

I love that question Jesus asked “who do you say I am?”

 

[RedFan]

This entire thread is debating what Jesus words to Peter meant! Jesus plainly and clearly tells Peter he is rock....but yet it is being debated.

As I pointed out earlier (post #26), both St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom thought the rock was not the man Peter, but rather his confession. So your "plainly and clearly" declaration must mean that in your view not only were these Catholic saints just wrong, but they had their heads up their asses.

Isn't it safer to say that your conclusion is neither "plain" nor "clear," but just correct? Or better attested? Or more logical? Overreaching impinges your credibility a bit, and smacks of confirmation bias.