Upon THIS Rock I will build my Church

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Understand sister, I am not saying Jesus did not love Peter. And I am not saying that Peter's heart was not in the right place. He most definitely loved Jesus Christ. Otherwise he would not have wept bitterly as He did. And Jesus knew it.

Even though John was there at the end, and Jesus gave responsibility of His mother to him, the Church was not built on John either. Just because James would be the head of the Church at Jerusalem, the Church was not built on him either.

I am saying I don't believe the Church is built on one man, Peter. If it had been built on one man, why not choose John or James?

Stanger
I don't believe they were able to do what Peter did.
If anyone built the church, I'd say Paul did.
I'm sorry my thoughts aren't straight on this so I'll just read along.

Jesus is the rock.
Peter was supposed to be the head of the church (small c).
I'm thinking of Acts 1:14 and on. Peter spoke,,,I've always thought of him as the most important Apostle in the sense of continuing the "work" Jesus had started.

When I was first saved, I believed Jesus didn't even want a church, just a different way of life. But then I realized there has to be a church for men to stay together --- it's just human nature.

Enough babbling...I'll remove myself.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Bible refers to the “Law of Moses” (Mal. 4:4, Luke 24:44, Acts 13:39, 1 Cor. 9:9). Jesus even referred to the "Seat of Moses".

Do you have a problem with that??
Wasn’t it GOD’s Law?? Wasn't is GOD's Seat??

No, I have no problem with that. But even Moses could not but fail under such responsibility and therefore could not enter the promised land.

If you are going to make a comparison between Moses, then it must be between Moses and Christ. Not Peter. (John 1:17)

Stranger
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Why would you question God's motives??

Why did God choose ANY of the losers and dummies in Scripture??
He did this because HE worked through them. It has nothing to do with THEIR abilities - and everything to do with HIM.
It's always made me wonder, then, why PAUL wrote most of the N.T.
He WAS the intellect of the group...
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Why would you question God's motives??

Why did God choose ANY of the losers and dummies in Scripture??
He did this because HE worked through them. It has nothing to do with THEIR abilities - and everything to do with HIM.

I am not question God's motives. I am questioning those who believe the Church is built upon Peter. And I am giving examples of why.

Stranger
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,936
3,387
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It's always made me wonder, then, why PAUL wrote most of the N.T.
He WAS the intellect of the group...
It was the Holy Spirit speaking THROUGH him.
It could have been anybody - but God chose Him BECAUSE he was a Jewish leader.
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Uhhhhh, no - it's because Jesus CALLS him the "Rock".
It has nothing to do with "wanting" anything.
Then why is it so important for the CC to want PETER to be "the rock"?
The CC does not teach that Peter is THE ROCK,,,it teaches that Jesus is the rock.
If Jesus is the rock...then how could Peter ALSO be the rock?

I've always believed it has to do with Peter being the "first pope".
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I don't believe they were able to do what Peter did.
If anyone built the church, I'd say Paul did.
I'm sorry my thoughts aren't straight on this so I'll just read along.

Jesus is the rock.
Peter was supposed to be the head of the church (small c).
I'm thinking of Acts 1:14 and on. Peter spoke,,,I've always thought of him as the most important Apostle in the sense of continuing the "work" Jesus had started.

When I was first saved, I believed Jesus didn't even want a church, just a different way of life. But then I realized there has to be a church for men to stay together --- it's just human nature.

Enough babbling...I'll remove myself.

Yes, Jesus is the Rock. Peter was definitely bolder than all the others in his faith. And after his denial the Lord received him and told him to feed his sheep. He still trusted Peter.

And yes, Paul, was the apostle to the Church. Given a new revelation from God.

Stranger
 
  • Like
Reactions: GodsGrace

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,936
3,387
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Then why is it so important for the CC to want PETER to be "the rock"?
The CC does not teach that Peter is THE ROCK,,,it teaches that Jesus is the rock.
If Jesus is the rock...then how could Peter ALSO be the rock?

I've always believed it has to do with Peter being the "first pope".
WRONG.
The Catholic Church has always taught that Peter is "THE" Rock of Matt. 16:18.

Tell me something - if Jesus is the "Rock" - then how can Abraham be the Rock in Isaiah 51:1-2??
Answer: Jesus, Abraham
and Peter are ALL described as being a "Rock" - but they have different ROLES.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,936
3,387
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I am not question God's motives. I am questioning those who believe the Church is built upon Peter. And I am giving examples of why.

Stranger
You're absolutely questioning God's motives.

Why don't you ask why ANY of the Apostles were chosen to be the original leaders of the Church?? Most of them were simpletons - fishermen with probably little education.

Why was David - a simple shepherd chosen to lead Israel and be the ancestor to the Messiah??
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
WRONG.
The Catholic Church has always taught that Peter is "THE" Rock of Matt. 16:18.

Tell me something - if Jesus is the "Rock" - then how can Abraham be the Rock in Isaiah 51:1-2??
Answer: Jesus, Abraham
and Peter are ALL described as being a "Rock" - but they have different ROLES.
Of course they have different roles,,,but there is only ONE ROCK.
The others are "small" rocks, just like Peter's name means small stone.
Too late...
Tomorrow.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,936
3,387
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yes, Jesus is the Rock. Peter was definitely bolder than all the others in his faith. And after his denial the Lord received him and told him to feed his sheep. He still trusted Peter.

And yes, Paul, was the apostle to the Church. Given a new revelation from God.

Stranger
I wouldn't even go do far as to say that He "trusted" Peter. He had plans for Peter and the rest.
The Holy spirit worked through Peter - just as He did the others.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,936
3,387
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Of course they have different roles,,,but there is only ONE ROCK.
The others are "small" rocks, just like Peter's name means small stone.
Too late...
Tomorrow.
And I've already proven to you that this is complete nonsense.

"Kepha" doesn't mean "small" stone. I explained ALL of this in post #31.
Kepha means "ROCK" - period.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,936
3,387
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Then why is it so important for the CC to want PETER to be "the rock"?
The CC does not teach that Peter is THE ROCK,,,it teaches that Jesus is the rock.
If Jesus is the rock...then how could Peter ALSO be the rock?

I've always believed it has to do with Peter being the "first pope".
That's probably because you're not familiar with the writings of the Early Church.
 

Philip James

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2018
4,276
3,092
113
Brandon
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
If you are going to make a comparison between Moses, then it must be between Moses and Christ. Not Peter.

Amen, I say to you, among those born of women there has been none greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he

Pax!
 

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Matthew had a problem translating Aramaic to Greek. Jesus spoke
Aramaic, not Greek. There are no constructive pronouns in Aramaic. Greek is not a divine language. A divine human language doesn't exist.

ܐܴܦ݂ ܐܷܢܳܐ ܐܴܡܰܪ ܐ̱ܢܳܐ ܠܴܟ݂ ܂ ܕܱ݁ܐܢ̄ܬ݁ ܗ̄ܽܘ ܟܻ݁ܐܦ݂ܳܐ ܂ ܘܥܰܠ ܗܳܕ݂ܶܐ ܟܻ݁ܐܦ݂ܳܐ ܐܷܒ݂ܢܶܝܗ ܠܥܺܕ̱݁ܬ݁ܝ܂ ܘܬ݂ܱܪ̈ܥܶܐ ܕܱ݁ܫܝܽܘܠ ܠܴܐ ܢܶܚܣܢܽܘܢܳܗ܂
“Again I say to you that you are the Rock (Kepha), and upon this Rock (Kepha) I will build my Church, and the gates of Sheol will not subdue it.”

In both places we see the same word, ܟܺܐܦܳܐ (Kepha or Kepho depending on pronunciation),...the disparity in gender between Peter’s name and the “this rock” upon which Jesus promised to build His Church is based on the demands of Greek noun inflection. It may also explain the frequency of references to Peter as Cephas in Paul’s letters. The Greek transliteration of the Aramaic/Syriac word ܟܺܐܦܳܐ is κῆφα. Our word “Cephas” is the Latin transliteration of the Greek word.

Paul refers to Peter by name ten times (from my count) in his letters. Of those 10 times, he calls him Cephas eight times, but πέτρος only twice. This may indicate that Peter was commonly addressed by the Aramaic term in that time and place, which further corroborates the hypothesis that it is the name originally given to him by Jesus, and whose gender would not have conflicted in the two instances in Matthew 16. Why else would Paul, who obviously knew Greek just fine, consistently refer to Peter as Cephas in letters written to congregations in the Greek-speaking areas of Corinth (Greece) and Galatia (Asia Minor, northwest of Cappadocia)? Even further still, we have in John 1 another account of Jesus telling Peter that he will be called Rock. In this instance, even in the Greek we find Jesus telling Peter that he will be called Kepha (using the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic), which John then translates for us:

ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν. ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν, Σὺ εἶ Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωάννου, σὺ κληφήσῃ Κηφᾶς, ὅ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος.

He [Andrew] led him [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon, the son of John. You shall be called Cephas,” which is translated as Peter.

This seems to indicate that any appellation of Cephas as Petros is derived not from theological nuance but from the interest of translating the word for Greek-speakers, and thus the word would naturally be translated with a masculine ending (for reasons alluded to above).
The Two “Rocks” of Matthew 16:18 in the Syriac Peshitta
 
Last edited:

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Wait. On which false teaching....that PETER is the rock and not Jesus?
They know Jesus is the rock...
They do this because they want Peter to be the first "pope".
And because the Catholic Church makes Peter the Rock, it not only blasphemes Christ (God) the Rock but it creates a false doctrine.

Here is a quote from "Catholic Answers":
The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, as the following passages show...

However, according to Scripture, that is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE. Peter was a fallible apostle, and could never be the Rock on which the Church (the Body of Christ, not the CC) was built. The fallibility of Peter is seen several times:

1. Peter denied Christ three times, and then was restored.
2. Peter had to be shown the sheet from Heaven three times before he was willing to go to Cornelius and the Gentiles.
3. Peter had to be rebuked by Paul for failing to be a consistent Christian.

None of this detracts from Peter being a leading apostle in the church at Jerusalem. But it certainly shows that he could not possible be the Rock.

I believe I will post the numerous Scriptures which establish that God (Christ) is the Rock and no one else. This is will be for the Catholic naysayers who persist in their errors even after they see the Scriptures.
 

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Matthew had a problem translating Aramaic to Greek.
More nonsense about this subject. Matthew wrote his Gospel BY DIVINE INSPIRATION in Greek. Therefore he could not make any errors whatsoever. Matthew's Gospel is Scripture, the Word of God. There is no document with a Hebrew or Aramaic Gospel according to Matthew.

And it does not matter what may (or may not) have been written in Aramaic. The Greek text clearly distinguishes between Petros (Peter) and Petra (Christ). And this is confirmed in 1 Corinthians10:4. So please note and back off from your errors about "Peter the Rock".

καὶ πάντες τὸ αὐτὸ πόμα πνευματικὸν ἔπιον ἔπινον γὰρ ἐκ πνευματικῆς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας (petras) ἡ δὲ πέτρα (petra) ἦν ὁ Χριστός (Christ)
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You're absolutely questioning God's motives.

Why don't you ask why ANY of the Apostles were chosen to be the original leaders of the Church?? Most of them were simpletons - fishermen with probably little education.

Why was David - a simple shepherd chosen to lead Israel and be the ancestor to the Messiah??

No, I am not questioning God's motives. I am questioning the motives of the Roman Church to make Peter the rock upon which the Church is built.

David may have been one to lead Israel, but he is not the one upon whom rests the promises of God to Israel. Promises which the Roman and many Protestant churches seem to forget.

Stranger
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I wouldn't even go do far as to say that He "trusted" Peter. He had plans for Peter and the rest.
The Holy spirit worked through Peter - just as He did the others.

I can't argue with that. Of course He did.

Stranger